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 other than the sysop named in the case 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)

It looks like the page that was deleted did not belong to the requesting user, so you were in no position to delete it on sight. -- Reporter 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)

Before Reporting Misconduct

Due to a the growing number of Non-Misconduct cases popping up on this page the Administration Staff has decided to compile a basic summary of what has been viewed as Not Misconduct in the past. Please read over UDWiki:Misconduct and make sure that what you are reporting is in fact misconduct before filing a report here.

Cases made to further personal disputes should never be made here, harassment of any user through administration pages may result in vandal escalations. Despite their unique status this basic protection does still apply to Sysops.

Misconduct Cases Currently Under Consideration

The entire sys-op team but Kevan and Urbandead and Revenant

Aichon (talk | contribs | logs | block | IP Check | vndl data | discuss)

Boxy (talk | contribs | logs | block | IP Check | vndl data | discuss)

Karek (talk | contribs | logs | block | IP Check | vndl data | discuss)

Rosslessness (talk | contribs | logs | block | IP Check | vndl data | discuss)

Shortround (talk | contribs | logs | block | IP Check | vndl data | discuss)

Spiderzed (talk | contribs | logs | block | IP Check | vndl data | discuss)

I'd like to present a summary of why I feel the sysop team as a (mostly) whole has committed misconduct. User:Kitakaze was reported to Vandal Banning as a ban evasion or vandal alt. The sysop team, in part, decided not to pursue banning at that time, but to allow a de-escalation case to unfold first. However, the listed sysops have been aware of this oversight. This knowing lack of action is what I feel is misconduct. Thus, far there have been a few reasons as to why this is not misconduct. 1. The guidelines do not require banning; however, this has been the accepted result for previous vandals and it is well-established precedent (banned, make an alt, alt gets banned). 2. There is no time requirement for banning; this is obviously for two reasons: the sysop team may not be available within a certain (not the case) or banning the alt may impede wiki business (not the case). 3. It is in the best interest of the wiki. There is no wait for admin services, there is no bot-pocalypse devouring the wiki, there is honestly very little happening and very little sysop workload. Any vandalism could have been quickly repaired and the alts banned. I feel that negates the concern over multiple alts in retaliation, which could just as likely happen if/when she's banned anyway. More importantly, I feel the decision is detrimental to the wiki as it sends the signal that vandals are welcome, go ahead and cheat the rules, the sysops don't want to deal with it. This is why I feel misconduct is appropriate in this case: The decision was a judgment call, the judgment was the wrong decision and was not justified by a well-established precedent or by any reason other than the sysops choosing to take the path of least resistance, not the path in the best interest of the wiki. --_K 03:26, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Let's just jump start this ball rolling. Failure to ban a known ban-evasion account,User:Kitakaze, I wish to initiate misconduct charges against Special:ListUsers/sysop, that list barring urbandead and kevan. Ban-evasion isn't really a judgment call issue, there is no possible "good faith" issues (nor is intent important in ban evasion cases), nor are there issues in identifying whether the alt is indeed to avoid a ban (it's been admitted). Despite claims there is no time-limit to enforce the ban, in this case sysops are choosing to not enforce existing wiki policy. Additionally, it has been made clear this is not an attempt to set the precedent of allowing banned users to comment on their case. Therefore, the current active sysop team is willfully ignoring existing precedent (not allowing users to comment on their unbanning) and ignoring existing policy (which calls for vandal alts to be banned). --_K 21:39, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks Spidey. Who also pointed out that apparently none of these sysops can vote in this. I'd be happy to waive that as the originator of this or I guess I could break it into 7 different cases. --_K 22:01, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Sys-ops can't vote on Misconduct cases against themselves. As it currently stands, Kevan and Urbandead are indeed the only ones who can vote. (Either that, or someone who gets promoted after the fact of the miscondunctable offence.) -- Spiderzed█ 22:09, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Cool, I guess the only option is to make allowing users comment on their unbanning a precendent, which makes the misconduct invalid as setting precedents isn't misconduct. Thanks guys. --_K 22:12, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Right, so, you're holding the entire sysop team (including uninvolved sysops) hostage with the threat of Misconduct until we acquiesce and magically set the precedent that you want for a situation that hasn't happened yet? Okay. You do realize that's not how precedent gets set, right? —Aichon— 23:14, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Hostage??? What do you think is happening? I like how you respond to my obviously less than serious comment with a feeling of indignation and hyperbole. Based on conversation there seemed to be no indication as acknowledging this as anything other than a special case. A special case that goes against the established precedents of the wiki. I was under the impression I was allowed to present cases here, if I am wrong please just remove this one and continue making up rule as we go. --_K 23:47, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Late addition, I didn't notice Aichon's summary comment. I actually offered to let the accused sysops vote or to split the case up to single cases against sysops. Aichon, if you are going to accuse me of something please make sure I haven't already shown it wasn't my intent and do in such a way as I can directly respond. Thank you. --_K 00:02, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

It's inappropriate to include Revenant in the list. He hasn't demonstrated any awareness of the situation, his last contribution is from ten days before the A/VB case was posted, and Rev has a history of going inactive for periods of time. Unless you can provide evidence that he was aware of what's going on, his name should be removed. The same may go for Shortround, who hasn't voiced an opinion one way or the other in the discussions taking place. Also, if you're gonna go down this route, you need to make specific claims so that we can respond and an impartial judge can verify the facts and rule fairly. Please let us know what parts of what policies you believe we're violating, and link to any quotes or other evidence you're citing, since I don't recall the sysops having said some of the things you claim they said. —Aichon— 22:55, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

It's true that including Revenant in this is patently ridiculous. I also think this is far from misconduct, although I'm waiting for Kirsty to provide evidence that persuades. It may be unfair (which, based on the discussion on Talk:DE, seems to be Kirsty's biggest allegation), but unfairness does not misconduct make. Bob Moncrief ^EBD•W! 23:34, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

In case anyone is unaware of the situation or is in the future looking back on this case, it's in reference to an A/VB case against an alt of Izumi's. Izumi is currently undergoing an A/DE vote to be un-permabanned, and the sysop team has decided to hold off on enforcing the ban on her alt, pending the results of the A/DE case. —Aichon— 22:55, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

I guess this can go here. As for Revenant, that is fine. He has been removed.
I guess there is no policy but I point to this: "The user is an alternate account of a vandal that is still under his/her ban period." [[1]]
As it appears to be precedent: I'll also note the follow comments that seem to indicate it is an accepted precedent: "This case is actually pretty open-and-shut: Izumi's alt deserves to be banned for a few reasons, not least of which is because the alt was created prior to the case, with the case being created in response to the presence of the alt." from Aichon [[2]]
and: "That difference is why we never let an Amazing alt come back and "secretly" edit after a couple of years." from Karek [[3]] both seem to indicate that the intent or behavior of the vandal doesn't matter.
About purposely ignoring policy: "We can let it slide for a few weeks while this stuff sorts itself out." from Aichon [[4]]
and this one: "This case is actually pretty open-and-shut: Izumi's alt deserves to be banned for a few reasons, not least of which is because the alt was created prior to the case, with the case being created in response to the presence of the alt." from Aichon [[5]]
About no time limit: "There is no required time limit for coming to an A/VB verdict." from Spidey [[6]]
About this being a special rule for just one user: "They can demand all they want, but precedents only apply in situations that match (not to mention that future sysops can ignore the precedent if they feel we acted inappropriately). No one else has the sort of history with the wiki that Izumi has..." from Aichon [[7]]
If there are any accusations, whether misconduct or comments, I haven't referenced, please point them out. I'll be happy to continue jumping through hoops until we can treat all wiki users fairly and the same. --_K 23:31, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Also, before I'm ask from proof of why I'm here: "There needs to be good judgement behind judgement calls. And preparedness to have your judgement questioned (usually via A/M). I'd hardly say sops get a free pass to do whatever the fuck they want. Same when going against precedent." From Vapor (a former sysop) over on the DE talk page. --_K 23:57, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

Way to throw me under the bus there, K. A lot of the quotes you've used here are used out of context (mine included) least to mention poorly formatted. The link to the discussion page is suficient. At least use some sort of header and logical formatting. I'll add a proper response later but this shit is just a mess and don't want to touch it. ~ _{00:19, 21 February 2013 (UTC)}

Yeah, I don't know how to do all the wiki formatting stuff. I don't see how I took your comment or any others out of context, but since this case is about me and not the sysops ignoring policies, jump on in. --_K 00:29, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Like I said, the quotes aren't necessary. Link to the discussion is suficient. You've partially quoted sentences within full paragraphs with no frame of references tonwhich those statements were made. That's how its out of context. ~ _{00:42, 21 February 2013 (UTC)} Nevermind, Acorn has already sorted through your mess. ~ _{00:44, 21 February 2013 (UTC)}

Okay, going down your list...

1. So, you're admitting you can't point to a policy we've violated, and the only policy you think we may even be stretching at all is one that we've repeatedly made clear that we have every intention of upholding?
2. What precedent are you referring to? I wasn't talking about precedent at all in that quote. I was referring back to the policy you just cited, which doesn't place any requirements on us enforcing the policy immediately. Instead, it leaves it to our judgment.
3. You've pulled Karek's quote out of context. He was clearly talking about the distinction between carte blanche decision-making power (e.g. allowing Amazing back in secretly, which would be in clear violation of policy) and the sort of judgment that we're explicitly granted by the official guidelines.
4. You've incorrectly claimed I was ignoring policy. I was not. I simply chose to wait for something else, and there is a long history of doing exactly that on A/VB. For your pleasure, here's a quick sampling of examples that only stretch back as far as 2010: not enforcing a permaban until more opinions could be garnered, not enforcing an escalation until stuff got sorted out, refusing to rule Vandalism until another case had concluded, not enforcing a permaban until additional opinions can come in, not enforcing an escalation until more opinions could be offered, not enforcing IP and account bans or deleting a likely vandal page while information is checked, not enforcing a ban on an open proxy while a discussion with a user of the proxy who was arguing for allowing it was ongoing, not enforcing an escalation immediately, not enforcing a permaban immediately, not enforcing a permaban until more opinions could come in, waiting to apply additional ban time
5. Yes, the account deserves to be banned, but part of ruling properly is not merely knowing the what but also the when, which is left to the discretion of sysops.
6. Yep. What he said is true, though clearly we still need to be acting in the best interest of the wiki, which we are.
7. That's not special treatment, as Spider already pointed out. It's an acknowledgement of a unique situation. Unique situations happen all the time around here. That's why sysops are given leeway to act appropriately in those situations, since otherwise we'd be entirely ineffective.

And since you haven't cited any policies we've violated, I'll cite one that we've specifically upheld:

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.

Said by the Administrative Guidelines

We're exercising our best good-faith effort to ensure the well-being of the wiki on a special case. I'm sorry you're offended that this situation likely only applies to Izumi, but that doesn't make what we're doing misconduct. —Aichon— 00:33, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

1, 2, 3, are the same thing, I had thought there was a policy about banning evasion alts, there is not. It is a precedent. A precedent you acknowledge in 2. I use Karek's quote as evidence that apparent the intent of the evasion alt doesn't matter, which is why amazing never got to edit anonymously. I already said this in my references. I understand the poor formatting might make it difficult to read, but that is no reason to apparently ignore what I said unless you have a handy counter argument. Your examples of other times are all times when more information was needed or the ban would specifically impede the ability to resolve the case. Not related. As for the when, it should be once it is verified to be a vandal alt, how hard is that? Could you explain the difference between unique situation and special treatment? It would seem those mean the same thing. As for doing what is best for the wiki. That is the point of this case, if it is determined you acted in the best interest of the wiki than you win. If not, then you did indeed violate if nothing else that policy. I will again repeat, if this isn't the place to question whether this is indeed in the best interest of the wiki, please vandal ban me and delete this case. --_K 00:46, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Oh since we are being so technical. The policy says "may" ban, the precedent is ban and ban immediately. --_K 00:51, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Guise. Srsly. Guise. Alt should have been banned promptly. If the A/DE vote went the way of unbanning then the alt's ban and the subsequent main warning could be stricken, if not then they obviously stand. Deliberately putting it off until the vote is over leaves things open to abuse (what if Cornhole decided to start shitting up the wiki again with an alt while a vote was being held to bring him back?) and it's always better to come down hard on a loophole before it's misused. There was no reason to not ban the alt for what was cut-and-try block evasion, because you all know fine rightly that A/DE exists and could have been used to strike any bans/warnings if necessary once Izumi's vote was over. 23:59, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

In your Corn case, we'd ban him immediately, just as we'll ban Izumi immediately if she does something that's vandalism. And it's always better to do what's right, even if someone might try to use it for a loophole later. We'll have to trust people to do their job later. —Aichon— 04:25, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

What's the purpose of banning the Izumi alt? --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 00:12, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Until she's unbanned, it is ban evasion, which always warrants a ban on the alt. Standard procedure, and deviating from standard procedure is what should be justified, not sticking to it. 00:14, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

What's the importance of following standard procedure? What's the importance of banning the alt? --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 00:16, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Because if no one stuck to standard procedure then you'd have an op team of Misanthropies and that guy was fucking terrible. Is this a serious question? 00:18, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm asking why any of you want to ban the Izumi alt. I'm also asking why any of you want to follow the rules. And I'm asking what you guys want out of all of this: the drama (in which case proceed with what you're doing). Or to avert the drama (in which case treat the wiki as a wiki). That's probably vague. That's okay. --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 00:33, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Since this case now is apparently about how it is absolutely horrible of me of the challenge the infallible nature of the sysops and accusation that I am attempting to force policy, I will no longer be commenting here until Rev, or whoever, appears and rules or the case is removed and the sysops go back to just doing whatever they want. --_K 00:58, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your time. ~ _{01:04, 21 February 2013 (UTC)}

Nonsense. You're perfectly fine posting this and arguing it, but you better beleive that we'll argue back. I'll post more later. —Aichon— 01:06, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

With respect Ms. Cotton because I hardly know you, this is among the silliest things I have ever seen on the wiki. And I was here when Grim S. usurped absolute power. Wiki policy, like the law, should be a living rational thing interpreted wisely by a rational judiciary (sysops). This is akin to zealots who wish to follow the bible, or a constitution to the letter regardless of situational applicability and it's just plain nuts. These guys are doing a fine job, and we're in danger of losing nothing here. There is no slippery slope, and the huns are not at our doorstep.--Sarah Silverman 01:19, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Amicus Curiae: Bob Moncrief

I'm not a sop, but I'd like to chime in here, as I've done on Talk:A/DE. Technically, all of this got started because of a discussion I started there (entitled "Ban-Circumvention: Policy?"). My original intent with that conversation was to ascertain whether a given policy or precedent applied, or whether one or the other should be established. This is what I've found:

• No policy applies here. In refraining from banning User:Kitakaze, Aichon and Spiderzed were not violating policy - the policy that Kirsty cites above only states the circumstances in which sysops "may" ban a user, and makes no statements (nor pretends to) that they "must". This definitely falls within the space of "sysops' discretion", and is therefore not misconduct.
• No direct precedent applies here. In no prior de-permaban vote did the vandal in question attempt to 1) create an account or 2) use a pre-existing account to participate in the process; all such cases have been created and defended by third parties. It has, however, occurred (as Aichon said) that vandal bans have been delayed due to extenuating circumstances before.

Because this case should not have come to misconduct, this leaves a few options regarding the dispute itself: the policy towards cases like this one.

• The option the sysops (mainly Aichon, also Spiderzed) seem to have taken is to accept that this is a precedent, but is so narrow in scope as to (most likely) never apply again.
• The option Kirsty (and her supporters) seem to believe is just is that this be taken as a broad precedent, that those nominated for a de-permaban vote be able to create (or keep active) a sock account, not being banned, to comment on the process of the vote, and that not to allow this (or, especially, only to allow it for "exceptional" case's like Izumi's) is unfair. (Full disclosure: This is the interpretation I personally take.)
• If neither of these precedents is settled upon, the way to handle the issue is to create (or attempt to create) a policy. This was the original intent of my topic creation: to ascertain whether such a policy should be created. The policy could either be that

1. Sock accounts of perma'd users must be banned whether or not a case relevant to the user is ongoing; or
2. If a perma'd user is undergoing a de-permaban vote, that user should be allowed to create a sock account to comment on the vote (presumably with specifications as to where such comments would be allowed), and if the account is used for something else (like commenting on unrelated pages or editing the wiki in general), whether this would be considered vandalism.

Conclusion:

• The case at hand is not misconduct, as the sysops involved did not violate policy or precedent by choosing not to act.
• If the discussion as to what kind of precedent the A/VB case creates falls apart, we can either drop it and hope it never comes up again, or attempt to create a policy. (I am actually thinking about proposing a policy myself to avoid this in the future. Thoughts?)
• The outcome of the discussion has no bearing on the actual vote going on to unban Izumi Orimoto. The Kitakaze account should be banned upon the vote's conclusion, whether Izumi succeeds or fails in being unbanned.

Respectfully submitted, Bob Moncrief ^EBD•W! 01:08, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Just a note because I don't want to bother reading through what is clearly just an attempt to cause drama. We actually can both vote and close this case immediately. There's precedent of these types of cases not being treated as serious, since they clearly aren't. --Karek^{maps 2.0?!} 03:15, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Also as a note. I actually think Izumi's alt should be banned but understand the arguments for not doing so and have not done so because consensus seemed against it. In addition to this clearly being an open discussion on the development of best practices in regards to the Permabanning repeal process. That and Aichon has the right of the meaning of my quoted comment about Amazing. --Karek^{maps 2.0?!} 03:54, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

I think it's a serious case that has merit in having been made, though I disagree with the charge that any of us engaged in misconduct. As for self-voting, could you point me towards a case like that? I'm curious what the circumstances were with that case. —Aichon— 04:17, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

I would agree that this is definitely a serious case, maybe an easily-concludable one but definitely not a joke. I also don't want to cause drama; I'm really sorry if it came off that way. I'm trying to get the drama to calm down so we can maybe get productive things done. Bob Moncrief ^EBD•W! 07:38, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

You did what you set out to do. Your comments are part of why I changed my mind. --_K 12:19, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

I think this entire thing is absolutely hilarious but has also merit. I personally feel that an expectation exists that sysops should rule/act and carry out policy-directed responsibilities within a reasonable amount of time. I can also see how not fulfilling that expectation and duty can and eventually will lead to misconduct. I think determining what is a reasonable amount of time is impossible and proving/determining misconduct defined by what is essentially "lack of action" would also be both challenging and potentially extremely dangerous (what do you with inactive sysops?).-MHSstaff 07:56, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

When I was elected, I said I would very rarely rule on VB, and only when I had something new or interesting to say. In this case I didn't.--Shortround }.{ My Contributions 03:35, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

After further review of the situation as well as Bob's comments and talking to Aichon and having Aichon point out Spidey's initial justification, I'd like to withdraw my case. I still think it was a questionable decision but being a new issue and a new situation I don't think the actions of the sysops warrant misconduct. I do think a precedent was set by the decision (and possibly one that will cause problems down the line), but I think ultimately the sysop's decision was to preserve the ability of the community to make decisions, which I accept as a justified reason to override existing precedent. --_K 05:26, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

what a cunt--User:Sexualharrison12:38, 21 February 2013

OOh, totally missed this. Not really sure if not doing something has ever been misconductable. It's not as if you're misusing your powers. Thats one to think about. It's also a weired rev position. He did nothing to stop this. He was in direct communication on the 19th, so why not include him? --Rosslessness 13:31, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Because no one else mentioned or appears to have been aware that he was in contact on the 19th? I actually argued to have him removed from the list because I wasn't aware of any activity on his part since two weeks ago. —Aichon— 18:48, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

At least now we know why Kevan doesn't give a shit about this game anymore... faggotry like this.--THE Godfather of Яesensitized, Anime Sucks ^{Yalk | W! U! WMM| CC CPFOAS LOE ZHU | Яezzens} 19:05, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

I don't think your comment is "faggotry" --_K 21:22, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Concluded Misconduct Cases

Check the Archive for concluded Misconduct cases.