UDWiki:Administration/Misconduct/Archive/Krazy Monkey/2008

2008, December 28

Sysop seems to have deleted Bin and Test, but I can't find them in the Archives of either the Deletion or Speedy Deletion pages. The Logs show a deletion at 23:45, 27th December 2008 by a System Operator, but this does not seem to be backed up by a request for that deletion. I would like to know why this is the case.

As is made clear by the Administration Guidelines, "Except in the third instance listed above, a system operator may not delete a page that he or she has requested be deleted", the third instance in this case being a page in his own userspace. The pages in question were not in his userspace and do not appear to be scheduled deletions according to policy. Therefore these were inappropriate deletions. Sysop has previously been subject to a misconduct case for failing to correctly follow similar procedure on administrative actions.

Expect 24 hour ban as per the example at the top of this page for a similar offence. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 00:03, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

This was to test MediaWiki:Pagemovedtext. In order to see it working, I need to move a page. Simple as that. -- Cheese 00:08, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

This should have been requested for deletion in the same way as any other user should have had to, in order that this could have been reviewed by another sysop. This is why the deletions process exists. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 00:10, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to quote this oft used part of the admin guidelines: System operators, as trusted users of the wiki, are given the right to make judgment calls and use their best discretion on a case-by-case basis. Should the exact wording of the policies run contrary to a system operators' best good-faith judgment and/or the spirit of the policies, the exact wording may be ignored. I created the pages solely to test a system message. They were not edited by anyone other than myself, and their deletion did not bother anyone as a result. In my best good-faith judgement I thought tidying up after myself would be a good idea. Considering one of the pages was a scheduled deletion anyway (redirect resulting from a page move) and the other contained the word "Testing", you are pretty much condemning me over a seven letter word. -- Cheese 00:15, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

How would I know what these pages contain? I can't see them. Unless they are restored I have only your word on this. The guidelines are clear in the fact that the only things you should be deleting without oversight are your own (read userspace) pages. These weren't in that userspace. One would think you'd have actually paid attention to the last misconduct case you were in and learnt to follow appropriate procedure in such matters. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 00:19, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

As much as I'd love to sit here arguing over nothing, I'm working in about 7 hours so I'm off for some sleep. Good night. -- Cheese 00:33, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Page logs would have shown you that it was a page he made and then moved and then deleted(bin) and the page he moved it too. A simple search would have shown it was a empty page(it's been through A/SD tons of times) and another view of the logs would have shown you that he was the only contributor to the page which he had restored. These are all public in Special:Logs. This isn't misconduct of any sort, not even minor, much less of any relation to that case. So he didn't put them in his namespace, that's the only mistake he made here.--Karek^maps?! 08:19, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Sysop user sub pages arn't scheduled deletions either, though, are they? -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 14:04 28 December 2008 (BST)

We've actually been over this in the past and they are open to immediate deletion. Here's the actual guideline(3).--Karek^maps?! 14:30, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Oh right. I was looking under scheduled -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 14:50 28 December 2008 (BST)

Misconduct - The red tape is there for a reason. If you want to cut it permanently, we have established processes for that. Either get it scheduled, take it to policy discussion or just follow the rules. It's not the first time you've done it either. -- Cheese WTF!RandomSysOp? 14:43, 8 November 2008 (UTC) <<< That sums up my view on this matter, I suppose. Misconduct. --– Nubis ^NWO 03:12, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Misconduct - of the most minor kind, again. As can be seen in the deletion logs, the Test page was an Unused redirect resulting from page moves, which is already a scheduled deletion, and the other page was only contributed to by Cheese himself.

---

• 23:45, December 27, 2008 Krazy Monkey (Talk | contribs | block) deleted "Test" (content was: '#REDIRECT Bin' (and the only contributor was 'Krazy Monkey'))
• 23:45, December 27, 2008 Krazy Monkey (Talk | contribs | block) deleted "Bin" (content was: 'Testing' (and the only contributor was 'Krazy Monkey'))

---

This type of testing is made extremely hard if you have to wait for other sysops to serve your requests, so it's understandable, however the actions really ought to be recorded on the deletions page so that non sysops can tell what's has been going on. Also fuller explanations in the edit summaries helps for people who notice it on RC -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 04:06 28 December 2008 (BST)

Or maybe if some people actually contributed to the wiki instead of harassing people that actually do this wouldn't be necessary to even discuss.--– Nubis ^NWO 20:08, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Misconduct - of the most minor kind, again. Conndraka^{mod TAZM CFT} 04:50, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Following the concept of Jury Nullification, I choose to change my mind and vote Not Misconduct. Conndraka^{mod TAZM CFT} 17:44, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Misconduct - I don't fully understand what you were testing but if it was possible for you to move pages in your user space, you should do that, otherwise go through the red tape.--xoxo 06:44, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Misconduct - Per the letter of the rules. Pointless though they are, they are rules nonetheless. However, it is such a minor breach that I don't see how we can reasonably dole out any punishment.--The General ^{T Sys U! P! F!} 14:00, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Not Misconduct - Sysops create test pages and delete them all the time. This is a petty case, and like petty vandal cases this shouldnt even be discussed. --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{talk mod} 15:38, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

It is petty, Hagnat, but Cheese himself thinks something like this is misconduct. And remember what he said when you tried to get unused templates as a scheduled deletion? He's one of the hardline red tapers.--– Nubis ^NWO 16:29, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Sometimes i really dislike talion's law... i am against red tape, and this clearly falls under my principles. Cheese might help mantain the red tape, but that doesnt change that fact that, in my belief, this is not misconduct. --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{talk mod} 19:33, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Not Misconduct - Asking a 24 ban for this should be considered vandalism.--Thari ^{TжFedCom is BFI!} 12:29, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

I agree that asking for the 24 hour ban should be considered vandalism. --– Nubis ^NWO 19:32, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Conndraka^{mod TAZM CFT} 23:03, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Asking for asking for a 24 hour ban for this to be considered vandalism should be considered misconduct. --Midianian^|T|DS|C:RCS| 23:26, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Misconduct - Pretty minor, though. --ZsL 23:55, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Status (Krazy Monkey)

resolved
Not Misconduct 5 (Hagnut, Conndraka, Thari, Nubis, Karek) Misconduct 4 (J3D, The General, Boxy, Zombie Slay3r)note:3 of 4 Misconduct votes identify the misconduct as so minor to be of the most minor of natures. Conndraka^{mod TAZM CFT} 09:57, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Oh yeah i forgot, make that 4 out of 4.--xoxo 10:04, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Also it seems Nubis ruled misconduct, he just didn't bold it...--xoxo 10:12, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

He's in the total already J3d Conndraka^{mod TAZM CFT} 10:24, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Okay sorry if i'm misreading something really obvious but it seems to me he's in the not misconduct total when he voted misconduct...--xoxo 11:02, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Two weeks and two different sysop attempting to pervert the result of a misconduct case by intentionally misrepresenting the result to the community. This action alone should also be misconduct. The vote currently stands at Not Misconduct: 4 - Hagnat, Conndraka, Thari and Karek; Misconduct: 5 - J3D, The General, Boxy, ZombieSlay3r and Nubis.

"Misconduct - The red tape is there for a reason. If you want to cut it permanently, we have established processes for that. Either get it scheduled, take it to policy discussion or just follow the rules. It's not the first time you've done it either. -- Cheese WTF!RandomSysOp? 14:43, 8 November 2008 (UTC) <<< That sums up my view on this matter, I suppose. Misconduct. --– TANK! Nubis 03:12, 28 December 2008 (UTC)"

-- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 13:35, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

miscounted Nubis...my bad. Regardless St. Crucifix, the effect is the same. Its so fucking trivial that nothing is going to come from it. Conndraka^{mod TAZM CFT} 21:40, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Oh(!) Yes(!) You 'miscounted'. Right.... Notice all how despite my views on this user I still don't stoop to such immature tactics as changing his user name in a derogatory fashion. Trusted user.... -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 23:41, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Misconduct ruling with no punishment ≠ nothing. --Midianian^|T|DS|C:RCS| 21:55, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Even once it's agreed to be misconduct, we still need to decide a punishment. At that point, we could agree that nothing more than a telling off is appropriate.--The General ^{T Sys U! P! F!} 22:58, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Punishment (Krazy Monkey)

Given that this is as trivial as it gets, no punishment seems to be the consensus, as long as he agrees to keep these tests to his own namespace in future (or go through A/SD) -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 23:43 30 December 2008 (BST)

I promise I'll be good. =( And I promise to play in my sandpit in future rather than in the big wide main namespace. -- Cheese 23:49, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

14 October 2008

Protected a page without going through A/PT.

What makes this especially bad is that Karek did exactly the same thing not long ago, meaning that Cheese should have known the effects.

This is exactly the kind of fuckup that most likely would have been avoided if a request had been lodged in A/PT and another sysop had reviewed it. --Midianian^{|T|T:S|C:RCS|} 19:17, 14 October 2008 (BST)

I didn't actually realise that protecting it would make the edit links disappear for regular folk. I just thought someone had overlooked it, rather than there being a reason for it. Since the page has been accidentally edited a few times now, I thought the best course of action would be to protect it and stick a note on it to let folk know how to add a report. After you posted in Protections, I realised that I'd got it wrong and corrected it. Just proves I need to learn to read. =P -- Cheese 19:34, 14 October 2008 (BST)

No, it proves you should have posted a request and let someone else look at it and point the error out to you, and the whole thing would've been avoided. --Midianian^{|T|T:S|C:RCS|} 19:39, 14 October 2008 (BST)

Are you seriously trying to claim you weren't aware that protecting a page makes it uneditable? Because that is just ridiculous...--xoxo 09:08, 15 October 2008 (BST)

This is a little more complicated than that. The A/VB page doesn't actually have much content on it, it is made up of a header and an inclusion (template like call) of the current VB archive page. Cheese didn't protect the archive page, and assumed (wrongly) that the protection of A/VB would leave the inclusion edit links. Unfortunately, for sysops, everything looks normal because we can edit protected pages, so while Cheese wouldn't have noticed the problem, no one else can edit any of the sections of A/VB. It's happened before. This is the reason that a "fuck the rules" policy, as advocated by many here, is problematic. If you choose to ignore the rules, then you've got to be willing to accept the consequences when you fuck up. I'd like to see Cheese admit that he stuffed up here, and "do penitence", rather than have something forced upon him -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 10:40 15 October 2008 (BST)

What sort of thing do you mean by penitence? -- Cheese 11:11, 15 October 2008 (BST)

If you are willing to submit to a misconduct ruling, just choose what you think is an appropriate outcome from this case. Hopefully the other sysops will agree, and this can be done with -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 11:49 15 October 2008 (BST)

I don't really want him punished either. I just want to avoid things like this altogether, and the easiest way to achieve that is if the sysops make requests on the administration pages when appropriate. The rules are not there to make your life difficult, they're there for a reason. People are in a way blind to their own errors and showing things and discussing them with others are the easiest ways to expose them. --Midianian^{|T|T:S|C:RCS|} 11:16, 15 October 2008 (BST)

Did you try to bring it up with him before coming here? --HAHAHA DISREGARD THAT, I SUCK COCKS 11:28, 15 October 2008 (BST)

No. Even though I don't think he should be punished, I still think it's misconduct and should be handled as such. --Midianian^{|T|T:S|C:RCS|} 12:28, 15 October 2008 (BST)

meh. no harm done, easily fixed. cheese knows better now, so... move along... --People's Commissar Hagnat ^talk 19:38, 14 October 2008 (BST)

It doesn't matter whether or not it did any harm, it was the incorrect and improper thing to do, hence misconduct. - . . <== DDR Approved Editor 09:45, 15 October 2008 (BST)

says the guy who was defending grim?--THE Godfather of Яesensitized, Anime Sucks ^{Yalk | W! U! WMM| CC CPFOAS LOE ZHU | Яezzens} 10:33, 15 October 2008 (BST)

You do realize that Grim's coup did just as little harm and was fixed faster than this? --Midianian^{|T|T:S|C:RCS|} 12:28, 15 October 2008 (BST)

grim's case was a cummulative case, and he only got punished because he was a constant pain in the ass, using his status as a sysop to make his decisions the "right" ones. Cheese, on the other hand, already admited that he dir err but without knowing. Now he knows better, so why continue this (and add to the red tape) ? --People's Commissar Hagnat ^talk 12:56, 15 October 2008 (BST)

Because every new sysops who comes across this problem, and hasn't seen Kareks original mistake, is destined to make the same mistake over and over again if they take it on themselves to "fix the problem" without consultation -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 13:17 15 October 2008 (BST)

So, if it's a problem every new sysop (and some old too) will eventually come about, why punish them for it ? It's a simple mistake, made with good intentions. If cheese (or anyone else) refused to acknowledge the mistake and kept yelling at the users as it was their fault, then yes it would be misconduct. Cheese already admited he didnt knew and was only trying to improve the place. A simple slap in the wrist and call it a day. --People's Commissar Hagnat ^talk 13:43, 15 October 2008 (BST)

CNR. I'm not after a punishment here. Just a change in behaviour that prevents similar errors from happening again. --Midianian^{|T|T:S|C:RCS|} 13:50, 15 October 2008 (BST)

I know you are not after punishment, but there are some users (such as iscariot) who are. --People's Commissar Hagnat ^talk 14:20, 15 October 2008 (BST)

I invite Hagnat to show where in this case I have asked for punishment. Misconduct =/= demotion, lifetime incarceration and the death of your kittens. A prospective sysop assuming the intentions of others when in places like A/VB they should assume good faith? It's more likely than you think. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 14:32, 15 October 2008 (BST)

Hagnat's promotion bid has been up less than a day and he's already trying to subvert the misconduct system in preparation for his own actions. Misconduct has nothing to do with good or bad faith, that would be vandalism. Misconduct is the improper way of doing things using the powers given to trusted users. There is a clear procedure in place, Cheese did not follow it. The reasoning does not matter. I point everyone to the example above this section that shows how this section should work. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 14:06, 15 October 2008 (BST)

Gonna agree with Iscariot here, its clearly misconduct. It might have been a well meaning mistake but it is also very much the improper use of a sysop power. I don't know that a "punishment" is needed but it kind of defeats the purpose of the page if he doesn't get a guilty verdict and a slap on the wrist.--Honestmistake 14:29, 15 October 2008 (BST)

What people are failing to realise is that misconduct does not mean public execution and demotion. It's about highlighting errors, the sysop in question accepting a small inconvenience (say a 24 hour ban) as a way of admitting their mistake, restoring the community trust and demonstrating that they wish to continue in their capacity as a trusted user. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 14:35, 15 October 2008 (BST)

IF it was about "highlighting errors" then it could have been handled with a note on his talk page saying, this isn't how you fix that problem. This is about punishment. Cheese probably didn't know about the real problem locking the page caused because the case brought up against Karek turned into a shitstorm of Grim shouting POLICY POLICY RARRRR with his walls of text. I don't blame Cheese for not getting through all of that to see that the real problem was that protecting the page made links disappear for regular users and that Karek didn't get the chance to figure out if it could be done since he had to deal with this page. (the misconduct case was brought up while Karek was still working on the coding) Since there is no way of knowing the effect of that action without doing it what else could he do? And in the original case even if it had been posted on A/PT it wouldn't have mattered because we didn't know the effect of locking the page in the first place. --– Nubis ^NWO 16:37, 15 October 2008 (BST)

There are no walls of text there other than yours, Grim made exactly two comments in addition to the original short report, and the issue was explained specifically to Cheese. And yes, posting it on A/PT could have prevented the error in the original case as normally the edit links vanish when a page is protected and someone might have realized that it would probably also remove them from included headers. --Midianian^{|T|T:S|C:RCS|} 16:49, 15 October 2008 (BST)

The problem with a Ban in cases like this is that it inconvieniences everyone rather than just Cheese. All it really means is 1 less sysop is able to do whatever sysops do? I think in cases like this a simple record of the fact they have been guilty of incompetence is enough... would be nice if such a record were attatched to their name when Crat promotions come around rather than requiring a trawl through other pages or a good memory--Honestmistake 15:03, 15 October 2008 (BST)

You're confusing Grim's coup (which was just about the coup, and where he was banned for six months and was denied promotion for a year after that) with his misconduct case right before that one (which was about him abusing his sysop status, and where he lost his 'crat status). --Midianian^{|T|T:S|C:RCS|} 13:45, 15 October 2008 (BST)

/facepalm --HAHAHA DISREGARD THAT, I SUCK COCKS 10:25, 15 October 2008 (BST)

Misconduct - Enough already. He did wrong, and it was something where he should have know better, if he (as the next 'crat) had been paying attention to recent misconduct cases he would comprehended Karek's mistake (which he commented on). Please use the protections page in the future, Cheese. I suggest no penalty is warranted -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 14:48 15 October 2008 (BST)

Not Misconduct - This is why nothing changes on this damn wiki without a bloody revolution. It was clear what Cheese was trying to. He wasn't abusing his power, he wasn't overthrowing the establishment, he wasn't even editing anything for selfish gain. There was no intent. Even the common vandals get intent factored into consideration. And this bullshit about "just take the misconduct and go on" has got to stop. We need fresh blood in the sysop positions that don't have the policies shoved so far up their ass that they shit with a time stamp. --– Nubis ^NWO 16:00, 15 October 2008 (BST)

and if you are worried that other sysops will come along and protect the page incorrectly to fix what they think is the problem then put a fucking note on the page not to do that. There's enough text on there that people ignore anyway.--– Nubis ^NWO 16:02, 15 October 2008 (BST)

Intent was factored in to my reaction to this case, as always. But it doesn't change the fact that Cheese caused a problem by ignoring the rules, and a problem that he should have know about too, given that it's happened before only recently. I'm more than willing to ignore petty work arounds, where no one is inconvenienced, but if you want to ignore the rules, you have to accept the consequences if you stuff up -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 16:14 15 October 2008 (BST)

If you feel the "red tape" is too tight, you should know where you can try to loosen it or completely get rid of it. --Midianian^{|T|T:S|C:RCS|} 16:28, 15 October 2008 (BST)

WHOA THERE NELLY! We don't need a huge big drama fest starting over me being an idiot. I accept that I messed up and that I should have paid more attention. I will learn from my mistake and will run all my admin actions through the official pages in future. Promise. -- Cheese 16:19, 15 October 2008 (BST)

It's not so much over you, Cheese, as a misunderstanding of the concept of the ignore all rules concept... it should never be an accepted policy, it is simply a philosophy to be followed. Point 4 of what IaR does not mean bears reading in cases like this -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 16:42 15 October 2008 (BST)

I don't see how all of the errors of past sysops doing what Cheese did should all be pinned against him. What he did is NOT that big of a deal! If this had all worked out, no one would be complaining he went around the rules! We're almost repeating the Grim case in that we put the blame of the other actions sysops took on him squarely.--SirArgo ^Talk 16:50, 15 October 2008 (BST)

The issue isn't that it's been done before but rather that Cheese participated in that case and should have known better.--Karek^maps?! 05:01, 16 October 2008 (BST)

Accidental Misconduct Consider yourself smited mightily... On another note, Im afraid I do beleive there is some connection between misconduct and bad-faith/good faith. Bad faith is always misconduct while good faith may or may not be depending on the situation. Conndraka^{mod TAZM CFT} 23:21, 15 October 2008 (BST)

Not Misconduct - I agree with Nubis, Cheese was dumb, if he does it again it's misconduct because know he's had much warning on this. If it's not worth a punishment it's obviously not abuse/misuse of power(misconduct).--Karek^maps?! 05:03, 16 October 2008 (BST)

Ruling

Cheese has put his hand up, saying he did wrong and that he'll be more careful in the future, which seems to be all anyone wants out of this, so I guess case closed -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 12:35 20 October 2008 (BST)

8 October 2008

Sigh, in relation to This A/VB case, Cheese issued a 48 hr ban to a user for not breaking any rule. While the "shitting up of admin pages" tends to be ground for a "soft warning" and a series of "soft warnings" can result in a banning escalation, Cyberbob's post was not shitting up the page. While I evidently disagree with the whole soft warning process, leaving that completely aside, Cyberbob's edits were fine and thus there needed to be no link in to his previous soft warnings or what have you.

Unlike A/VB cases where things tend to be reasonably straight forward and sysops ask people to use the talk page to avoid clutter, A/M cases are public forums where all users are allowed to post their views and opinions. This is made fairly apparent by the fact that A/M talk pages are not suposed to be used, a "rule" that Grim himself (relevant as he made the A/VB report) periodically enforces. If Bob isn't allowed to post on the talk page, and isn't allowed to post on the A/M page, where exactly is he to post?

Furthermore his post was not entirely irrelevant bad faith jibberish that should be deleted from the page, of course i'm not saying it is essential reading, but his opinion is his opinion and should be allowed to remain on the page providing it meets basic formatting guidelines and isn't pure spam. --xoxo 02:44, 8 October 2008 (BST)

Please read the first line of this section. For your convenience: "On this wiki, we define Vandalism as "an edit not made in a good-faith attempt to improve this wiki"." The edit for which cyberbob was banned was entirely a troll edit. Trolling is pretty obviously bad faith. Moreso when there were several calls for him to cease and desist before a case was brought. I will admit i too was confused by his ban summary, but that doesnt mean the ban was wrong (As i have shown). More likely it was a brain fart. That said, i will not rule on this case because i fuiled the Vandalism case in the first place. I hope you find this explaination sufficient to withdraw your case J3D. --The Grimch ^{U! E!} 03:24, 8 October 2008 (BST)

For all purposes this page functions as a talk page, and as far as i'm aware trolling on talk pages (as long as one avoids breaking the page) is allowed, i'm not saying it should be but unless there is some precedent that shows people being banned/warned for it the case stands. --xoxo 03:39, 8 October 2008 (BST)

Because you don't agree with his opinion it does not make it a bad faith edit. This is ridiculous! --– Nubis ^NWO 03:43, 8 October 2008 (BST)

But the fact it was complete and utter trollcrap, such as he has done in every single post he has made on this page since my case started does Nubis. Kindly pull your head out of your arse and smell the morning air. Trolling is not really allowed, we just have no clear means of dealing with it. Which was what my two requests for him to cease trolling the page were intended to do: Establish that i had tried (Honestly) to have him curb this behaviour, and then reported him for vandalism when he didnt. They key difference between cyberbobs posting and those of other trolls is that other trolls on this wiki make a point in the same post they toss a bit of a troll around with. Cyberbob does not. His posts are 100% certified troll dung. Pure trolling is pure bad faith, which can be and is subject to the vandal escalation system. Its just that few people are stupid enough to pure troll so they can say that their edit was at least partly in good faith, which insulates them from A/VB. --The Grimch ^{U! E!} 04:03, 8 October 2008 (BST)

Bob has been a serial pest in this area for a very, very long time, and the punishment of which I understood would eventually amount to such a ban if he kept going. I agree that the punishment is technically harsh, but in the case of Cyberbob's, something like that has to be accepted as a 'he [finally] had it coming' incident. D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 04:14, 8 October 2008 (BST)

Whether or not someone is trolling or not is a subjective view. To enforce a view with the powers assigned to a limited user group is moderation, not systems administration. This is why the case should be misconduct. Grim forwarded an opinion as is his right as someone making a vandal report, Cheese confirmed this in his ruling which made the ruling a moderation. Sysops are not moderators. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 14:25, 8 October 2008 (BST)

Misconduct I'm sorry that you were either trying to show support for Grim or just in a hurry to rule on the case, but there was no imminent threat to the community that would require his ban being applied without a vote. The offense is so subjective (if it is even an offense at all) that it would have hurt nothing to have input from other sysops. This is the type of action (banning users) that should be a decision supported by many sysops. While the amount of time (48 hours) was correct in accordance to his Vandal Data applying a punishment (of that level) with only your guilty vote smacks of abuse of authority. Sorry, Cheese. --– Nubis ^NWO 14:33, 8 October 2008 (BST)

Not Misconduct I am changing my decision not based on that pointless "precedent" that Grim linked (which I didn't vote on back then) but because of Cheese's explanation and apology, and the fact that I did not realize Bob had placed an image. (I've been checking this page regularly and missed the image which I feel -because of my own past experience - is truly spamming.) I do not think Bob was/is trolling, and I don't think the 48 hour ban should stand, but I no longer see Cheese's actions as misconduct. Cheese, sorry if I seemed harsh and thank you for your explanation. I was wrong. --– Nubis ^NWO 02:43, 9 October 2008 (BST)

You two clearly need to examine This past misconduct case regarding hagnat when he warned a user for making a five word troll comment on the sacred ground policy talk page. Overwhelmingly ruled not misconduct. --The Grimch ^{U! E!} 15:09, 8 October 2008 (BST)

Wait! Precedent now applies? Colour me shocked and amazed! -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 15:19, 8 October 2008 (BST)

Like DDR pointed out, A/VB and A/M have different rules regarding user comments on cases. Bob is free to troll on A/VB cases, as long as he do it on the talk page. But in misconduct cases, All discussion of misconduct should occur on this page, not the talk page - any discussion on the talk page will be merged into this page once discovered. he is free to do it here. Bob only got away with all his trolling because he manages to keep them in context with what is being discussed. --People's Commissar Hagnat ^talk 15:25, 8 October 2008 (BST)

Here's my explanation. Misconduct has the following URL: UDWiki:Administration/Misconduct. This makes it an administration page. As a result it's bound by the same rules as the other admin pages. Bob's been told quite a few times now about spamming admin pages (and been banned for 24 hours for doing just that), and sticking a random image on the page is usually classed as spamming. I didn't rule because I support Grim, I'm just following what I know as being the case. *shrugs* If I made a bad call, I apologise and I will learn from this. -- Cheese 18:19, 8 October 2008 (BST)

Also, for the record: My remaining warning needs struck. :) I've been really really good and stuff this year. -- Cheese 18:22, 8 October 2008 (BST)

Not Misconduct - Never has been in regards to ruling, if a number of sysops disagree, the ruling will be overturned. However, you should really let these controversial things sit for a while before carrying out a ruling, Cheese. --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 18:39, 8 October 2008 (BST)

Speaking as the receiver of the ban in question, I don't think what Cheese did deserves a misconduct case. I obviously disagree with it, but there was little harm done and it isn't as though he's the first to ever make an overly hasty ruling (and act on that ruling). --HAHAHA DISREGARD THAT, I SUCK COCKS 06:33, 9 October 2008 (BST)

Not MisconductHell.. when even the truly offended party goes wtf? Conndraka^{mod TAZM CFT} 22:11, 9 October 2008 (BST)

2008, June 8

Ruling upon a case in which he had a vested interest in the outcome, in an attempt to set a precedent to excuse his own behaviour on an identical case on the page. Such behaviour is just plain not on. Its an attempt to stealth rule not guilty on your own vandalism case. --The Grimch ^{U! E! WAT!} 02:00, 10 May 2008 (BST)

I'm a little suspicious of your own motives, Grim. You said We need a tipping verdict after commenting on the outcome of the vandal case being a tie, then bringing two ruling sysops (opposing your opinion, evident by a ruling and the case you made) to misconduct. Regardless, I don't think Krazy Monkey had a vested interest, he had already declared his stance before on the misconduct case of Karek and Hagnat. --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 04:25, 10 May 2008 (BST)

When he ruled, i had brought a case against him for the same thing there was a case against Karek and Hagnat. Also, as i grow tired of pointing out, motivations for making arguments are inconsequential. What matters is the soundness of those arguments. Also, his "stance" consisted entirely of striking votes is not misconduct, and taking it to either arbitration or A/VB, where he then ruled not guilty shortly after i brought a case against him for doing it himself. It is a rather clear cut case of an individual attempting to set a precedent towards acquittal on one case to ensure his acquittal in another identical case. I also mentionad at the time i could take him to misconduct for ruling on it, all i have done is follow through. Even if i had agreed with his decision i would have brought this misconduct case because its just not fucking kosher to rule on your own cases. How about instead of speculating on my motivations and thereby slandering me, you examine the facts and came up with the right answer? --The Grimch ^{U! E! WAT!} 04:35, 10 May 2008 (BST)

How about you don't always fucking assume that I am entirly inept at coming to an appropiate decision? Hmm? Is poor wittle AHLG annoying you because his feelings differ from yours? I thought you fucking finished with your attacks on my ineptness on IRC, rulings (I can list 'em). Apparently not. Also, notice the "regardles". Sheesh. Goodbye. --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 04:51, 10 May 2008 (BST)

Someone call the WAAAAAHmbulance, looks like a certain someone spat the dummy. --The Grimch ^{U! E! WAT!} 10:45, 10 May 2008 (BST)

Contribs said:

18:28, 8 May 2008 (hist) (diff) m UDWiki:Administration/Policy Discussion/Vote Striking (→Voting Section) 18:27, 8 May 2008 (hist) (diff) m UDWiki:Administration/Policy Discussion/Vote Striking (→Voting Section - Striking Possible Meatpuppets. Discuss on Talk Page.) 18:00, 8 May 2008 (hist) (diff) UDWiki:Administration/Policy Discussion/Vote Striking (→Against)

That bit which is between his being iffy on a ruling and suddenly ruling it not vandalism makes me tend to think he didn't care until he himself decided to strike some users votes. Which in turn means that Grim's right, he was invested in the outcome of my case and ruled purely because of that. Misconduct until someone can show differently.--Karek^maps?! 07:21, 10 May 2008 (BST)

Right, technically I shouldn't have ruled but I felt that Grim had once again totally and utterly jumped the gun with this. My case had no bearing on my judgment at all. In a case such as this it's not entirely black and white, therefore it would have been a better idea to have a discussion rather than just doing an auto-warn as he always seems to do with he's on one of his power trips. Also, Grim, stop with the whole "Gnome is an inept fool who doesn't know what he's talking about". If anyone here is inept, it's more than likely you. Get over yourself. -- Cheese 15:14, 11 May 2008 (BST)

Ah yes, the power trip accusation. Ah, the power of past slander to shape present events and opinion. I have had no "power trips" in the past, and this also was not one. What was here instead was quite simple. A case to be ruled on (Nothing specifies that it has to be done by multiple sysops, or that discussion is mandatory). It was black and white. You are not allowed to remove other peoples comments from discussions, hagnat, karek and yourself all did so. Hence the warning on the hagnat/karek case. People have been warned for removing comments and votes before, why should you have been any different? If you wanted to oppose, you should have said "Id like another sysop or two to come in and weigh their opinions, not rulesd yourself on a case in which you had a vested interest, especially in favour of your own acquittal. Ill bet you my bottom dollar that if i had ruled not vandalism, you wouldnt have fussed, regardless of how seemingly "hasty" it was (Despite the fact it had all been discussed on misconduct for a week beforehand). --The Grimch ^{U! E! WAT!} 03:00, 12 May 2008 (BST)

I'm thinking not misconduct due to this edit, where he strikes out most of his post, and makes it clear he's contesting rather than ruling on it after a very quick ruling and warning from Grim in such a disputed area without any other consultation with other sysops to confirm the decision -- boxy ^{talk • i} 17:17 11 May 2008 (BST)

Except he leaves the "Not Vandalism" part as well as almost the entire thing unstruck meaning his ruling on the case remains. Also, when a second ruling appears and its differenty to the first, its always contested. He just fixed the language of the post to reflect that, rather than removing his verdict. The matter is not so much that he contested the ruling, but that he did so with a ruling of his own on a case in which he had a vested interest. That said, im growing used to you letting sysops off for pretty much anything up to murder, so this turn didnt suprise me in the slightest. --The Grimch ^{U! E! WAT!} 23:18, 11 May 2008 (BST)

Grim, for Christ sake, get your head out your arse. So far this year, you have called Gnome and Con inept at least 4 or 5 times each, chucked your toys out the pram at every available opportunity you get and basically go around on an auto-warn spree every time something comes up in VB. On top of that, you're acting all hurt and offended because Boxy didn't agree with you. From the above case: excessive bullying, or attempts to treat the status of sysop as a badge of authority to force a sysop's wishes on the wiki may also come under misconduct. I think in the two years I've been on this wiki, I've seen more than enough evidence to put a misconduct case together on this subject. Being a dick to everyone is not the way to go about things. So grow up, and stop taking your bad mood out on everyone else. -- Cheese 23:31, 11 May 2008 (BST)

So, no defense offered, just a string of abuse. Ad Hominem combined with an example of Poisoning the Well. If you feel that strongly about it, go ahead and make the case. In fact, given how little substance your comment had, im calling you out on this. Make the case or piss off. --The Grimch ^{U! E! WAT!} 23:39, 11 May 2008 (BST)

I read that, then I actually started to laugh. It's quite ironic coming from you, considering most of the comments you come up with nowadays are just a load of abuse anyway. I will be bringing the case, by the way. I just need a few hours to trawl through all the shite you've posted over the past few years. -- Cheese 23:43, 11 May 2008 (BST)

Have fun with that. And the key difference between what i do and what you were doing is that i add the insults and such as flavour, rather than using them as the substance of my posts. I like to use reason where possible. --The Grimch ^{U! E! WAT!} 23:47, 11 May 2008 (BST)

I've been thinking about this situation, and have come to the conclusion that it should be not misconduct. There is a clear line where sysops should not be ruling on a vandalism (or misconduct) case against themselves, however they are entitled to voice their opinion on other similar cases. To deny them this right is to be able silence a section of the sysop community via strategic timing of such cases. These two case involve incidents that happened days apart, and it is obvious that sysops had differing opinions on whether it was acceptable practice or not. Timing these cases so as to make it so that 3 sysops from one camp were ineligible to voice their opinion on either of the cases undermines the checks and balances of having a diverse community of sysops to reach a consensus on an important issue such as this which will determine the precedence in future cases. All opinions should be heard, not just those that oppose such strikings -- boxy ^{talk • i} 04:19 21 May 2008 (BST)

Except you're purposely ignoring the reason I ruled misconduct, specifically that he didn't chose to rule until after he himself was an involved party, there was no timing on anyone's part but his. There's no "ignorance" involved, there's simply him being unsure how to rule, then striking votes and thus purposely ignoring the precedent being set in that case, and then ruling Not Vandalism on that case so as to cover his ass in what was obviously something he shouldn't be doing. It's an extension of the vandalism case against him except in this case he's purposely abusing SysOp powers. The contribs/timestamps I showed above show this extremely clearly.--Karek^maps?! 12:03, 22 May 2008 (BST)

not misconduct Boxy does a real effective job of explaining why, but I will once more go into the fact that I believe Cheesy was doing right by what he was thought was right to do so. And allow me to set myself up here... Ignorance(by the classical definition) in a given situationdoes not equal Misconduct :). Conndraka^{mod TDHPD CFT} 06:42, 21 May 2008 (BST)

Misconduct For the many reasons that Karek and Grim pointed out. But I am happy to see that Cheese did not vote on his own case unlike Hag. And in rebuttal to this: Timing these cases so as to make it so that 3 sysops from one camp were ineligible to voice their opinion on either of the cases undermines the checks and balances That is why there are 19 Sysops. (20 at that time) If some of them aren't coming forth on these cases then that means we need to take a look at the inactivity policy and demotion requirements. Because with that many there should always be enough for checks and balances.--– Nubis 11:32, 25 May 2008 (BST)

Voting

this case is ignore more than mine was... lets solve this in a similar way, shall we ? In 7 days we then make a ruling --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{talk - mod} 04:25, 29 May 2008 (BST)

Not Misconduct

1. shakes head Conndraka^{mod TTBA CFT} 14:17, 29 May 2008 (BST)
2. boxy (comment above)

Misconduct + Warning

1. karek (comment above)
2. nubis (comment above)

Abstain

1. involved in similar case, dont want to rule on this --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{talk - mod} 04:25, 29 May 2008 (BST)
2. Obviously... --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 04:35, 29 May 2008 (BST)

Ruling

Based on the vote above, krazy monkey was found guilty of Misconduct (2 votes of 4, +precedence of my case). A warning was issued. Have a nice day, citizen. --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{talk - mod} 01:07, 8 June 2008 (BST)

2008, June 2

Warned me over a fairly contentious issue. At the very least he should have waited until it became abundantly clear that the majority of the sysops support the decision rather than acting as relatively unilaterally as he did (two sysops doth not a conclusive ruling make). --brb, church ^{DORIS CGR U!} 13:38, 2 June 2008 (BST)

It's already happened: Grim did the same here. He didn't get misconducted for it. -- Cheese 13:41, 2 June 2008 (BST)

A severe oversight that changes little. If he had been misconducted and found not guilty, now, that would be different. --brb, church ^{DORIS CGR U!} 13:43, 2 June 2008 (BST)

Not misconduct - lolwut ? --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{talk - mod} 13:45, 2 June 2008 (BST)

Not misconduct - although I'd like him to reconsider his warning for such a minor bit of fun on the admin pages, there is clear precedent that sysops can rule on cases without taking every case to a vote... and you had been soft warned -- boxy ^{talk • i} 14:06 2 June 2008 (BST)

You'd like him to reconsider his warning? Fat chance, given the biased fuck that he is. --brb, church ^{DORIS CGR U!} 14:08, 2 June 2008 (BST)

Fucking hell this is stupid. Im trying to take a fucking holiday from this shit and since something i did that was completely different to whats gone on here has been brought up to excuse some stupid behaviour, i now have to comment.

1. Cyberbob, your case is not contentious. We have been over the whole thing several times now. The horse is long dead, please stop beating it. We went over this two or three times last year, and we went over it again a few months ago. The end result is always the same. Shitting up admin pages is not on, so butt the fuck out unless you are directly involved or have some extremely pertinent information to add.
2. Krazy Monkey. Its a requirement that two soft warnings be formally issued before standard escalations happen. A sysop asking someone to shut up doesnt count, something must be logged on A/VB. As such, Cyberbob only has a single soft warning regarding the issue at present.

I am not going to rule, because quite frankly, i dont want to rule and formally violate my fucking vacation while i participate in the Boxing Championship. However its my opinion that its minor misconduct because Krazy Monkey jumped a warning. --The Grimch ^{U! E! WAT!} 14:03, 2 June 2008 (BST)

Sick. Also, this will be a contentious issue for as long as my fingers are still able to type.--brb, church ^{DORIS CGR U!} 14:04, 2 June 2008 (BST)

When did the soft warnings become so strictly codified? --Midianian|T|T:S|C:RCS| 14:08, 2 June 2008 (BST)

I was going to ask the same thing... where's this 2 soft warnings thing written down? -- boxy ^{talk • i} 14:10 2 June 2008 (BST)

When Grim happened.--xoxo 14:08, 2 June 2008 (BST)

I was asking myself the same thing... there is no rule on when a user will get officially warned for shiting on administration pages, neihter a rule on where the soft-warning should be logged. It's just up to good ol' common sense and the concensus of the administration team. --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{talk - mod} 14:11, 2 June 2008 (BST)

Common sense? I lol'd. Also, it's painfully obvious that your bias is the only thing influencing this argument of yours. --brb, church ^{DORIS CGR U!} 14:13, 2 June 2008 (BST)

You mean the consensus of the cleaners? Who cares what they think...--xoxo 14:14, 2 June 2008 (BST)

Its just the done thing, historically so. Or have you all forgotten nalikill so readily? --The Grimch ^{U! E! WAT!} 14:23, 2 June 2008 (BST)

Done, what, once or twice? --Midianian|T|T:S|C:RCS| 14:26, 2 June 2008 (BST)

The Nali case was a disgrace and a large part of what drove him from being an immature but eager contributor to a repeat vandal who copped an outrageously large ban for what would should have been a matter for arbitration. That said there is no way this should have deserved a full warning when a second soft warning would have been sufficient to back up a ban on his next frivolous edit! --Honestmistake 16:43, 2 June 2008 (BST)

A ban? Lolwut? --brb, church ^{DORIS CGR U!} 22:20, 2 June 2008 (BST)

Not misconduct I don't see a problem. Conndraka^{mod TTBA CFT} 18:13, 2 June 2008 (BST)

Yeah, I figured you wouldn't. --brb, church ^{DORIS CGR U!} 22:20, 2 June 2008 (BST)

It looks like maybe one misconduct, and three not misconducts, so it's not misconduct. --ZsL 21:18, 7 June 2008 (BST)