|
|
| (95 intermediate revisions by 29 users not shown) |
| Line 43: |
Line 43: |
|
| |
|
| ==Misconduct Cases Currently Under Consideration== | | ==Misconduct Cases Currently Under Consideration== |
| | | ''There are no cases under consideration.'' |
| ===The entire sys-op team but [[User:Kevan|Kevan]] and [[User:Urbandead|Urbandead]] and [[User:Revenant|Revenant]]===
| |
| {{vndl|Aichon}}
| |
| | |
| {{vndl|Boxy}}
| |
| | |
| {{vndl|Karek}}
| |
| | |
| {{vndl|Rosslessness}}
| |
| | |
| {{vndl|Shortround}}
| |
| | |
| {{vndl|Spiderzed}}
| |
| | |
| 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). --<sub>[[User_talk:Kirsty_cotton|<span style="color: lightgrey">K</span>]]</sub> 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. --<sub>[[User_talk:Kirsty_cotton|<span style="color: lightgrey">K</span>]]</sub> 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.) --'''<span style="font-family:monospace; background-color:#222222">[[User:Spiderzed|<span style="color:Lime"> Spiderzed</span>]][[User talk:Spiderzed|<span style="color:Lime">█ </span>]]</span>''' 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. --<sub>[[User_talk:Kirsty_cotton|<span style="color: lightgrey">K</span>]]</sub> 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? {{User:Aichon/Signature}} 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. --<sub>[[User_talk:Kirsty_cotton|<span style="color: lightgrey">K</span>]]</sub> 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. --<sub>[[User_talk:Kirsty_cotton|<span style="color: lightgrey">K</span>]]</sub> 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. {{User:Aichon/Signature}} 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. {{User:Bob Moncrief/Sig}} 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 [[UDWiki:Administration/Vandal_Banning/Archive/2013_Q1#User:Kitakaze|A/VB case against an alt of Izumi's]]. Izumi is currently undergoing an [[UDWiki:Administration/De-Escalations/Archive/2013#Izumi_Orimoto|A/DE vote to be un-permabanned]], and the sysop team [[UDWiki_talk:Administration/De-Escalations/Archive/2013#Ban-Circumvention:_Policy.3F|has decided to hold off on enforcing the ban on her alt]], pending the results of the A/DE case. {{User:Aichon/Signature}} 22:55, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
| |
| | |
| I guess this can go here. As for Revenant, that is fine. He has been removed.<br>
| |
| 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." [[http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php/UDWiki:Administration/Policy_Discussion/Guidelines_Rehashed#When_a_User_May_Be_Warned_or_Banned]]<br>
| |
| 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 [[http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php/UDWiki_talk:Administration/De-Escalations/Archive/2013]]<br>
| |
| and: "That difference is why we never let an Amazing alt come back and "secretly" edit after a couple of years." from Karek [[http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php/UDWiki_talk:Administration/De-Escalations/Archive/2013]]
| |
| both seem to indicate that the intent or behavior of the vandal doesn't matter.<br>
| |
| About purposely ignoring policy: "We can let it slide for a few weeks while this stuff sorts itself out." from Aichon [[http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php/UDWiki:Administration/Vandal_Banning#User:Kitakaze]]<br>
| |
| 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 [[http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php/UDWiki_talk:Administration/De-Escalations/Archive/2013]]<br>
| |
| About no time limit: "There is no required time limit for coming to an A/VB verdict." from Spidey [[http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php/UDWiki_talk:Administration/De-Escalations/Archive/2013]]<br>
| |
| 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 [[http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php/UDWiki_talk:Administration/De-Escalations/Archive/2013]]<br>
| |
| 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. --<sub>[[User_talk:Kirsty_cotton|<span style="color: lightgrey">K</span>]]</sub> 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. --<sub>[[User_talk:Kirsty_cotton|<span style="color: lightgrey">K</span>]]</sub> 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. ~[[Image:Vsig.png|link=User:Vapor]] <sub>00:19, 21 February 2013 (UTC)</sub>
| |
| :::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. --<sub>[[User_talk:Kirsty_cotton|<span style="color: lightgrey">K</span>]]</sub> 00:29, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
| |
| :Okay, going down your list...
| |
| :#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?
| |
| :#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.
| |
| :#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.
| |
| :#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: [[UDWiki:Administration/Vandal_Banning/Archive/2012_04#User:Generaloberst_.284.29|not enforcing a permaban until more opinions could be garnered]], [[UDWiki:Administration/Vandal_Banning/Archive/2011_11#SON_OF_SIN|not enforcing an escalation until stuff got sorted out]], [[UDWiki:Administration/Vandal_Banning/Archive/2011_05#User:Underisk|refusing to rule Vandalism until another case had concluded]], [[UDWiki:Administration/Vandal_Banning/Archive/2011_04#User:Shazam_.283.29|not enforcing a permaban until additional opinions can come in]], [[UDWiki:Administration/Vandal_Banning/Archive/2011_03#User:Lawliet_Yraola|not enforcing an escalation until more opinions could be offered]], [[UDWiki:Administration/Vandal_Banning/Archive/2010_11#User:Hermann_von_Teutoburg_.26_User:Hermann_von_Teutoburg2|not enforcing IP and account bans or deleting a likely vandal page while information is checked]], [[UDWiki:Administration/Vandal_Banning/Archive/2010_11#All_the_sysops|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]], [[UDWiki:Administration/Vandal_Banning/Archive/2010_09#User:TexasXdooM|not enforcing an escalation immediately]], [[UDWiki:Administration/Vandal_Banning/Archive/2010_08#Axe_Hack_.282.29|not enforcing a permaban immediately]], [[UDWiki:Administration/Vandal_Banning/Archive/2010_07#User:F-u-c-k_you_f-u-c-k_me|not enforcing a permaban until more opinions could come in]], [[UDWiki:Administration/Vandal_Banning/Archive/2010_05#User:Cornholioo|waiting to apply additional ban time]]
| |
| :#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.
| |
| :#Yep. What he said is true, though clearly we still need to be acting in the best interest of the wiki, which we are.
| |
| :#That's not special treatment, [http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php?title=UDWiki_talk:Administration/De-Escalations/Archive/2013&diff=2057284&oldid=2057257 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:
| |
| :{{IndentQuote|author=the [[UDWiki:Administration/Guidelines#General_Conduct|Administrative Guidelines]]|text=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.}}
| |
| :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. {{User:Aichon/Signature}} 00:33, 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. {{User:Misanthropy/Sig}} 23:59, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
| |
| | |
| What's the purpose of banning the Izumi alt? --{{User:A Helpful Little Gnome/Sig}} 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. {{User:Misanthropy/Sig}} 00:14, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
| |
| ::What's the importance of following standard procedure? What's the importance of banning the alt? --{{User:A Helpful Little Gnome/Sig}} 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. {{tiny|Is this a serious question?}} {{User:Misanthropy/Sig}} 00:18, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
| |
|
| |
|
| ==Concluded Misconduct Cases== | | ==Concluded Misconduct Cases== |
| Check the [[UDWiki:Administration/Misconduct/Archive|Archive]] for concluded Misconduct cases. | | Check the [[UDWiki:Administration/Misconduct/Archive|Archive]] for concluded Misconduct cases. |
|
| |
| [[Category:Pages to Preserve]]
| |
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
There are no cases under consideration.
Concluded Misconduct Cases
Check the Archive for concluded Misconduct cases.
