UDWiki:Administration/Misconduct

Shortcut:
A/M

This page is for the reporting of administrator (sysop) misconduct within the Urban Dead wiki. Sysops are trusted with a considerable number of powers, many of which have the capacity to be abused. In many circumstances, it is possible for a sysop to cause considerable havoc. As such, users are provided this page to report misconduct from the System Operators. For consistency and accountability, sysops also adhere to the guidelines listed here.

Guidelines for System Operator Misconduct Reporting

The charge of Administrative Misconduct is a grave charge indeed. If misconduct occurs, it is important that the rest of the sysop team be able to review the charges as necessary. Any charge of administrative misconduct must be backed up with evidence. The clearest evidence that can be provided for administrative misconduct is a clear discrepancy between the relevant action log (deletion, block, or protection log) and the archives of the relevant administration service page, and this is a minimum standard of evidence admitted in such a tribunal.

Misconduct is primarily related to specific Administrator Services, not standards of behavior. As such, situations including verbal attacks by sysops, while frowned upon, do not constitute misconduct. Sysops on a wiki are in theory supposed to have no more authority than a regular user - they merely have a greater scope of power. Personality conflicts between sysops and regular users should be treated just as a personality conflict between two regular users. If, in the course of such a conflict, a sysop abuses their administrative powers by banning a user, blocking or deleting a page without due process, that is misconduct, and should be reported to this page.

There is, however, an exception to this rule - 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. Any accusations of this should come with just as clear evidence, and for such an action to be declared misconduct, there should be a clear pattern of behavior across a considerable period of time.

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. Once a misconduct case has been declared closed, a member of the sysop team will mete out the punishment (if deemed necessary), and then move the case to the Archive.

Administrative Abilities

For future reference, the following are sysop specific abilities (ie things that sysops can do that regular users cannot):

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

If none of the above abilities were abused and the case doesn't apply for the exception mentioned above, then this is a case for UDWiki:Administration/Arbitration or UDWiki:Administration/Vandal Banning.

Example of Misconduct Proceedings

Sysop seems to have deleted Bad Page, but I can't find it in the Archives of either the Deletion or Speedy Deletion pages. The Logs show a deletion at 18:06, October 24th 2005 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 -- Reporter 13:42, 28 Oct 2005 (BST)

The deletion was asked through my talk page. I give my Talk page as proof of this. -- Sysop 13:42, 28 Oct 2005 (BST)

You know the rules, Sysop. All deletion requests have to go through the Speedy Delete page. Next time, please inform the user where they should lodge the request. This is a clear violation, will you accept a one-day ban as punishment? -- Sysop2 13:42, 28 Oct 2005 (BST)

I'm not liking it, but I clearly broke the rules, I'll accept the ban. I'll certainly remember due process next time... Sysop 13:42, 28 Oct 2005 (BST)

As punishment for failing to follow due process, Sysop has been banned for a period of 24 hours. This will be moved to the Archive shortly. -- Sysop2 13:42, 28 Oct 2005 (BST)

Misconduct Cases Currently Under Consideration

User:Krazy_Monkey

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)

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.

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)

User:Boxy

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

Nubis + boxy = 2 -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 06:28 21 December 2008 (BST)

Boxy ruled vandalism, not misconduct learn to count, it tends to actually make or break your case. --Karek^maps?! 06:29, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Counting? Does that include Hagnat intentionally misrepresenting the result of the Nubis case? -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 06:34, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Boxy didn't rule. He said warning after he'd ruled.--xoxo 08:30, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

And to clarify bu ruled i mean warned on my talk page and entered me in A/VD.--xoxo 08:31, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Not Misconduct - Nubis + Boxy ruling vandalism = 2, Hagnat ruling not vandalism = 1. 2 > 1 so therefore, he was within his right to warn you. -- Cheese 14:40, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

It was worth a try ;) --xoxo 14:41, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Ooh, is that an admission of a frivolous case I see there? --HAHAHA DISREGARD THAT, I SUCK COCKS 14:44, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

try reading 4 lines up, check the histories. then come back.--xoxo 14:46, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Nothing you've written above changes the fact that you just admitted you knew that Boxy's actions were within the rules. --HAHAHA DISREGARD THAT, I SUCK COCKS 14:49, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

*sigh*, please tell me you're playing stupid.--xoxo 14:51, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

No, but something tells me you are. This case is flawed, and your comment shows that you knew it. --HAHAHA DISREGARD THAT, I SUCK COCKS 14:53, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Not Misconduct hmmmm....Precedent..... Conndraka^{mod TAZM CFT} 18:02, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

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

User:Hagnat

The Administration Guidelines serve to regulate the conduct of sysops using their powers as trusted users. They contain many clauses designed to prevent sysops having to take sides in disagreements. These clauses are clear and leave no room for interpretation.

One such clause is:

In the event of protection, a system operator is expected to protect the page in whatever state the page was in at the time the request is reviewed, regardless of its original state. - Emphasis from the original document

In the procedure to protect, S.O.S. Hagnat ignored this clause and intentionally chose a side, in this case reverting to a contentious edit.ot

Not only is this in breach of Administration Guidelines regarding the protection of pages, but the procedures regarding Arbitration are clear. They are that the contentious edit should be removed for the duration of the case, Hagnat's actions go contrary to this procedure as well.

Hagnat stated during his most recent promotion bid that he would no longer 'mod' the wiki, he was clearly lying. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 02:33, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

He has continued this behaviour by unilaterally deciding the content of the page whilst it is under protection. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 02:36, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

First of all, i should've protected the page as in the moment of the request, and so i did. I was following due process in there since you were the one who started the revert war, not boxy, therefore its HIS edit that is valid for the duration of the arbitration case, rather than yours. Since the revert war begun when boxy removed the entire section, i dont see how i acted in bad faith here. And where the fuck did i said that i werent gonna mod the wiki ? Putting words in my mount, iscariot ? --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{talk mod} 02:46, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Now I know you have problems with English, but reviewed is clear, it does not mean when the requested was entered, it's when the the protecting sysop looks at the A/P page. But good luck in trying to rewrite the language I know better than you to make yourself right here. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 02:56, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

spirit of the law against law by the letter again ? I like how you managed to attack me, find a weak spot in my argument, and ignore all else. Here is the thing again: You are the one who started the revert war, if the page should be kept in any status before an arbie it should be the status prior the conflicting situation. --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{talk mod} 03:01, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Making up more 'guidelines' like the ones you wrote and unilaterally put in Admin namespace without community consensus again? You can spirit or letter as much as you like, those guidelines are there to prevent the image of sysops being partisan, something you breach with your every edit. The guideline is there to protect sysops, you breached it intentionally for personal preference. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 03:05, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Actually, Hagnat, the disputed edit gets reverted for the course of a case, not the edit disputing the edit. It should be reverted to the version with the signatures.--Karek^maps?! 06:09, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

I know this, you know this, why doesn't another member of the sysop team know this? Because he makes up his rules as he goes along. Still waiting for those signatures to be put back in.... -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 06:33, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

It's now on the right diff.--Karek^maps?! 06:39, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

And all I had to do is write a couple of thousand words and bring a misconduct case to get something that should have been done automatically? Must be a slow day on the wiki.... -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 06:47, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Also, you have the wrong version. Would you like me to point you to a copy of the correct one? -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 07:27, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Indeed I don't have time right now to dig through all of them to see where it started, I just reverted to the last undo action hagnat did with votes otherwise I'll have to copy and past the page code from an older version.--Karek^maps?! 08:35, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

The last contibution by The Hierophant was the last addition to the page. The correct reversion will include everything in the code including his post. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 08:39, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

It is now there.--Karek^maps?! 08:45, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Ta muchly. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 08:48, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

User:J3D

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I'm not sure he even says that much:

J3D

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Further information to hand

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

J3D said:

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

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

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

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

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