|
|
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
| {{Shortcut|[[A/M]]}} | | {{Shortcut|[[A/M]]}} |
| {{Moderationnav}} | | {{Administrationnav}} |
|
| |
|
| 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. | | 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== | | ==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. | | 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. | | 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. | | 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 [[UDWiki:Administration/Misconduct/Archive|Archive]]. | | 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 [[UDWiki:Administration/Misconduct/Archive|Archive]]. |
|
| |
|
| ==Administrative Abilities== | | ==Administrative Abilities== |
| Line 32: |
Line 32: |
| [[Example page|Sysop]] seems to have deleted [[Example page|Bad Page]], but I can't find it in the Archives of either the Deletion or Speedy Deletion pages. The [[Special:Log|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 -- [[Example page|Reporter]] 13:42, 28 Oct 2005 (BST) | | [[Example page|Sysop]] seems to have deleted [[Example page|Bad Page]], but I can't find it in the Archives of either the Deletion or Speedy Deletion pages. The [[Special:Log|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 -- [[Example page|Reporter]] 13:42, 28 Oct 2005 (BST) |
| :The deletion was asked through my talk page. I give my [[Example page|Talk page]] as proof of this. -- [[Example page|Sysop]] 13:42, 28 Oct 2005 (BST) | | :The deletion was asked through my talk page. I give my [[Example page|Talk page]] as proof of this. -- [[Example page|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. -- [[Example page|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? -- [[Example page|Sysop2]] 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? -- [[Example page|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... [[Example page|Sysop]] 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... [[Example page|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. -- [[Example page|Sysop2]] 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. -- [[Example page|Sysop2]] 13:42, 28 Oct 2005 (BST) |
|
| |
|
| ==Misconduct Cases Currently Under Consideration== | | == Before Reporting Misconduct == |
| <!--When there are no cases currently under consideration, place " ''There are no cases currently under consideration.'' " below. -->
| | Due to a the growing number of Non-Misconduct cases popping up on this page the [[Sysops|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. |
| ===[[User:J3D]]===
| |
| [http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php?title=UDWiki%3AAdministration%2FVandal_Banning%2FArchive%2F2008_12&diff=1339362&oldid=1339274 Does it get any more obviously biased?] --[[User:Cyberbob240|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? --[[User:Honestmistake|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).--{{User:Nubis/sig}} 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. --[[User:Cyberbob240|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. --{{User:Nubis/sig}} 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. --[[User:Cyberbob240|HAHAHA DISREGARD THAT, I SUCK COCKS]] 05:21, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
| |
|
| |
|
| '''Not misconduct''', actually, '''not a case at all'''. You used to know when people were joking bob. --[[User:Hagnat|People's Commissar Hagnat]] <sup>[[User talk:Hagnat|talk]] [[Special:Listusers/sysop|mod]]</sup> 18:41, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
| | 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. |
| :Coming from anyone else I ''would have'' chalked it up as a joke. J3D is a special case as you well know. --[[User:Cyberbob240|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. <sub> Happy Now Cheese? ;) </sub> [[User:Conndraka|Conndraka]]<sup>[[Moderation|mod]] [[User_talk:Conndraka|T]][[AZM]] [[Coalition for Fair Tactics|''CFT'']]</sup> 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.<sub>Placed here because Conn's prophecy was right this tiem, we disagree.</sub>--<small>[[User:Karek#K|Karek]]<sup><font face="Monotype Corsiva">[[User:Karek/ProjDev/OmegaMap|maps?!]]</font></sup></small> 09:59, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
| |
| ::If this goes down as misconduct then I'm dragging Hagnat here for ruling on [[UDWiki:Administration/Vandal_Banning/Archive/2008_11#User:Iscariot|this case]]. -- {{User:Iscariot/Signature}} 21:04, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
| |
| :::Haha Karek, ok, I await butt-buddy boxys ruling. I wonder what it will be...--{{User:Sexylegsread/sig}} 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 [[:Image:VBnonsense.png|drama]], which should be handled on A/VB, if anywhere <small>-- [[User:Boxy|<span style="color: Red">boxy</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Boxy|<span style="color: Red">talk</span>]] • [[The Rules|teh rulz]]</sup> 00:06 19 December 2008 (BST)</small>
| |
| :::::It makes me smile everytime when i see Eric Bessette in there...--{{User:J3D/ciggy}} 00:36, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
| |
| | |
| ===[[User:Nubis]]===
| |
| This case is being brought [http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php?title=User_talk:Nubis&diff=prev&oldid=1335997 at the insistence of Nubis himself], we're always being told by the sysops to use talk pages before admin pages, but apparently that doesn't apply to them.
| |
| | |
| Back when I returned to this wiki I noticed an act of de-escalation that was done incorrectly. Unsure of whether this could be [http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php?title=User_talk:Nubis&action=history considered vandalism or misconduct], I asked Nubis. He agreed with my original leanings that it [http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php?title=User_talk:Nubis&diff=next&oldid=1332811 was probably misconduct].
| |
| | |
| Then there was a whole succession of sysop posts on that page over Katthew being de-escalated when there were no records to prove or disprove her contributions. [http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php?title=User_talk%3ANubis&diff=1335908&oldid=1335798 I pointed out that] even if it could be proven with a complete edit history that a user had not been correctly de-escalated they would still probably not vote misconduct if the case was brought. In his next edit Nubis ended all further discussion and demanded this be taken to misconduct.
| |
| | |
| Let us now look at the criteria for de-escalations so that we are all familiar with them. [[UDWiki:Administration/Guidelines#Cycle_of_Warnings_and_Bannings|The Administrations Guidelines]] (a policy document) gives the criteria as:
| |
| ''"To encourage users to reform and become good contributors to this Wiki, a single vandal escalation can be struck out for every '''250 good-faith edits''' the warned user makes, provided that '''one month has passed, since the user's last infraction''', with another month for every subsequent striking after the first in the series, restarting in the event of a vandal escalation."''
| |
| Now we have the two criteria for a successful de-escalation, namely:
| |
| #One month must have passed since the edit that was ruled vandalism
| |
| #250 good faith edits must have been made
| |
| <small>Note: that under Vandalism guidelines "good faith" is taken to mean any edit that contributes to the wiki, any edit that is not "bad faith" and therefore vandalism.</small>
| |
| | |
| Now for some reason on Nubis' talk page, all the sysops (that's our trusted users who are supposed to know and enact the policies we as a community have voted on) could only see a problem with Katthew's de-escalation, even when there was a case with a clear edit history that had been incorrectly de-escalated. They must have just been having brain tumours for breakfast that week....
| |
| | |
| The de-escalation in question was [http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php?title=UDWiki%3AAdministration%2FVandal_Data&diff=1329119&oldid=1329118 mine]. Although a month had passed, I had not made 250 good faith edits by this point. This is clearly in breach of the policy as I have outlined above.
| |
| | |
| Now we must determine if indeed it is misconduct. A check of the top of the page gives the check of administrative actions, ones that if abused can be considered misconduct. Clearly on that list is ''"Editing of Protected pages by any means."'' [[UDWiki:Administration/Vandal_Data|Vandal Data]] is a protected page, and was at the time of Nubis' edit. The case is clearly concerning an administrative action and is therefore subject to misconduct proceedings.
| |
| | |
| Although mentioned nowhere in policy or guidelines, including the example case above, faith of these edits has been looked at in recent times (the cynical of us stating in hushed whispers that this is a means of self preservation for certain sysops to do this to set precedence in all cases), now we will look at the two possible motives.
| |
| | |
| '''1. Incompetence'''
| |
| The first motive is incompetence, Nubis made the edits without fully completing his duties as a sysop. As all sysops are expected and required by the guidelines to ensure that a de-escalation is valid before striking the warning, this makes Nubis' edit misconduct if this is taken to be his reasoning.
| |
| | |
| '''2. Intentional'''
| |
| Intentional? But how can a sysop ''intentionally'' subvert the community consensus in the course of his/her duties? There is a small line in the Administration Guidelines policy document that was placed there to protect sysops acting against unforeseen situations in a manner consistent with the protection of the community consensus. This line reads, ''"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."'' Unfortunately in recent times this has been used by sysops attempting to moderate this wiki as a blanket authority to act any way they want. Accordingly, we must take it into account. In order to ''make a judgment (sic) call"'', a user must be conscious of his decision. Therefore if Nubis acted in accordance with the first motive I have presented then he cannot claim this as a defence. Going further into this line we find ''contrary to a system operators' best good-faith judgment (sic) and/or the spirit of the policies''. The spirit of the policy in this case is clear, to rehabilitate a user who's edits have been considered vandalism by the wiki, as I was not editing the wiki at the time, and had not been for weeks, Nubis cannot show that this spirit of the policy needed to be ignored, I was not in danger of receiving another escalation due to making no edits, so his action could not have been done to protect me from an unwarranted ban. This leaves us with the final possible out for his actions, ''contrary to a system operators' best good-faith judgment (sic)'', in order to use this, and thus hide behind this clause, Nubis must demonstrate that he used his best judgement in good faith for his actions. Nubis must therefore answer the following question to the satisfaction of the community: '''How is it an act of good faith to this wiki community to ignore a policy and de-escalate early a user with the history of Iscariot?'''
| |
| | |
| In my opinion it is not possible for him to answer this question sufficiently to satisfy the act of arbitrarily overriding the policy of this community.
| |
| | |
| Going on the traditional punishments found in the misconduct archives, Nubis has committed misconduct by abusing his abilities and de-escalating a user incorrectly, either through ignorance or intentional subversion of the community. He should therefore receive his next escalation.
| |
| | |
| -- {{User:Iscariot/Signature}} 16:24, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
| |
| | |
| : You == Asshole. And that will be my entire contribution to this case. --[[User:Hagnat|People's Commissar Hagnat]] <sup>[[User talk:Hagnat|talk]] [[Special:Listusers/sysop|mod]]</sup> 17:00, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
| |
| :Just a ''tad'' too much time on your hands. --[[User:Cyberbob240|HAHAHA DISREGARD THAT, I SUCK COCKS]] 17:19, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
| |
| | |
| 1. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH !
| |
| 2. You are clearly a prolific poster on the wiki. It had been over a month and there was no doubt (although a hope) that you would suddenly go inactive. I was rather confident that you would get the 250 edits (as at that time I loaded 250 edits and the oldest ones were from the day of your warning.)
| |
| 3. I even admitted ''"the only de-escalation that was really on the cusp was probably yours. ''" because you see, unlike you, when I don't like someone I don't seek out ways to "get them".
| |
| 4. And, '''How is it an act of good faith to this wiki community to ignore a policy and de-escalate early a user with the history of Iscariot?'''
| |
| What history? Someone that runs the recruiting page? Someone that is the patron Saint of Dupes and actually reasonably defends the (few) good points in suggestions? Someone that even though he has a stick up his ass about the stupidest fucking things is still making good edits (alongside the snarky foul ones)? Because to me that's your history. I don't care if I don't personally like you, you contribute a shit load to this wiki and to "harass" you or hound you looking for things to take to VB would asinine. I think you are the biggest fucking douchebag on here, but if you need something moved, deleted, or fixed I'd do it for you because through your contributions you have earned that respect. (then I'd report right here to Misconduct because you hate me).
| |
| Also, it was just a warning. It's not like I could have left it and then found something to ban you over. Either way that warning was going away and wouldn't matter. --{{User:Nubis/sig}} 18:39, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
| |
| :#I don't 'run' the Recruitment page, 'run' implies power, or at least backing from sysops, I have neither.
| |
| :#I do not defend any suggestion, your accusation is libellous.
| |
| :#I have 'the respect' for you to move things? [[UDWiki:Administration/Move_Requests#Template:Imperium.2Frecruit|That's odd, I remember differently....]]
| |
| :#It is my assertation that you did not intentionally ignore the policy for those reasons listed above, otherwise you'd have mentioned it clearly when I originally asked on your talk page. You cannot go against policy using your judgement, and it is my opinion that you were ignorant of my edits and therefore cannot use this as your defence. Even now you prove incapable of admitting your error and accepting your escalation for misconduct, further damaging the community trust in the sysop team. -- {{User:Iscariot/Signature}} 21:38, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
| |
| | |
| '''Misconductification*''' Nubis should have never deescalated an ass such as yourself.<br>'''*'''<sub> Actually '''Not Misconduct''' for all the various reasons that Nubis listed above.</sub> [[User:Conndraka|Conndraka]]<sup>[[Moderation|mod]] [[User_talk:Conndraka|T]][[AZM]] [[Coalition for Fair Tactics|''CFT'']]</sup> 22:41, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
| |
| :Can I misconduct you for posting annoying double rulings all the time? -- {{User:Krazy_Monkey/sig}} 22:43, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
| |
| | |
| Short version: Nubis de-descalated Iscariot's warning prematurely at 243 edits, instead of 250. --{{User:Zombie slay3r/Signature}} 00:53, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
| |
| :Ok, so is 7 edits enough to be misconduct? What is your ruling? --{{User:Nubis/sig}} 10:23, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
| |
| ::Well, it technically is '''misconduct''', but it's so minor that you should just get a slap on the wrist. *smack* --{{User:Zombie slay3r/Signature}} 11:13, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
| |
| :::Oh, and remember to check edits before de-escalating, Nubis. --{{User:Zombie slay3r/Signature}} 23:46, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
| |
| | |
| I guess this case raises a big question...should sysops merely follow the exactly word of the law or should they take some sort of personality. Coz like usually i think sysops are fuckers but srsly this shouldn't be bad. I'm gonna say '''misconduct''' but lyk i don't want any shit to happen to ma man nubis. Coz he's a good guy. And he meant well. Can we plz recall sysops mods, coz then i wouldn't have a problem with this sort of shit going down. You guys wanted it to be sysops but srsly fuck that shit, we're mods and thats fine. Just accept it...... Love {{User:J3D/ciggy}} 03:52, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
| |
| | |
| '''Misconduct''' - For Nubis' reason #1. Also, I don't really know why this would be considered something worth punishing unless it was some ridiculous distance from reaching the required, unless I'm missing something you've now exceeded the limit that leads to this case. However, Nubis says it's misconduct I guess I have to agree with the guy.--<small>[[User:Karek#K|Karek]]<sup><font face="Monotype Corsiva">[[User:Karek/ProjDev/OmegaMap|maps?!]]</font></sup></small> 04:12, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
| |
| :Reason no. 1 was my actual response when I realized he was talking about himself yet let us all discuss Katthew. I bet he was sitting there going ''Mwhahaha, those fools don't even suspect my real case!'' and twirling his mustache like some cartoon fiend. And I was only off by 7 edits? Impressive. I would say let this case be a warning to all the sysops, but Iscariot seems to have a hard on for me. --{{User:Nubis/sig}} 10:19, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
| |
| :::Do you write your own material? [http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php?title=User_talk%3AIscariot&diff=1336300&oldid=1336294 Or do you just steal it from me?] -- {{User:Iscariot/Signature}} 21:23, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
| |
| :I would really hate to think you did this just to [http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php?title=Template%3ADramaLevel&diff=1338754&oldid=1336617|up your drama template]. When you read the summary it doesn't look good for you.--{{User:Nubis/sig}} 10:30, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
| |
| :shouldn't you wait til boxy rules before making your decision?{{User:J3D/ciggy}} 04:42, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
| |
| ::Shouldn't you be trying not to give us reasons to suspect Nallan is on the J3D account? Maybe not say stupid shit that shows you can't actually look through wiki histories like you should already be doing as a sysop, or sign with his name?--<small>[[User:Karek#K|Karek]]<sup><font face="Monotype Corsiva">[[User:Karek/ProjDev/OmegaMap|maps?!]]</font></sup></small> 04:58, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
| |
| :::quite frankly i'd be glad if you thought nick and jed were the same account. I mean it's so apparent we aren't. If you suspected us i'd be all like "lol what a douche he thinks we're the same person" coz like, who the fuck could be bothered acting like different people for 2 yearss??? that shits stupid....{{User:J3D/ciggy}} 05:07, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
| |
| ::::::# 03:46, December 17, 2008 J3D got IPs for Nallan on ud_wiki
| |
| ::::::# 03:45, December 17, 2008 J3D got IPs for J3D on ud_wiki
| |
| ::::::# 03:45, December 17, 2008 J3D got IPs for Boxy on ud_wiki
| |
| ::::::Interesting. Did boxy give you permission to check his IP? Was he vandalizing or suspected of account sharing/sock puppets? Why would you need to get IP information on yourself and Nallan? --{{User:Nubis/sig}} 23:08, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
| |
| :::::::Just a sneaking suspicion i had about those 3...--{{User:J3D/ciggy}} 23:19, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
| |
| ::::::::Trying to find out where I live [[User_talk:Boxy#several_things|again]], eh J3D? I hope you're not planning on sharing the '''''big info''''' with your buds <small>-- [[User:Boxy|<span style="color: Red">boxy</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Boxy|<span style="color: Red">talk</span>]] • [[The Rules|teh rulz]]</sup> 00:44 18 December 2008 (BST)</small>
| |
| :::::::::I wish i was that internet capable...--{{User:J3D/ciggy}} 04:20, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
| |
| :::::::::If you already checked his you'd know that they probably already checked it themselves with his sysop privileges.--<small>[[User:Karek#K|Karek]]<sup><font face="Monotype Corsiva">[[User:Karek/ProjDev/OmegaMap|maps?!]]</font></sup></small> 10:03, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
| |
| ::::::::::Proof plz. I'm the only person who knows the password to this account.--{{User:J3D/ciggy}} 00:55, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
| |
| :::::::::::Check User from the 14th lends itself to a difference of conclusion.--<small>[[User:Karek#K|Karek]]<sup><font face="Monotype Corsiva">[[User:Karek/ProjDev/OmegaMap|maps?!]]</font></sup></small> 01:22, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
| |
| ::::Obviously you've never heard of miagate and don't know how to check and figure out why it would be a question in the first place.--<small>[[User:Karek#K|Karek]]<sup><font face="Monotype Corsiva">[[User:Karek/ProjDev/OmegaMap|maps?!]]</font></sup></small> 05:10, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
| |
| :::::ROFLMAOPMP@MIAGATE --[[User:Hagnat|People's Commissar Hagnat]] <sup>[[User talk:Hagnat|talk]] [[Special:Listusers/sysop|mod]]</sup> 11:07, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
| |
| ::::::What was Miagate? =/ And '''Misconduct'''. Barely. Give him a finger tap on the wrist, that should make up for it. -- {{User:Krazy_Monkey/sig}} 11:28, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
| |
| :::::::Miagate involved a case of multiple personality disorder which Karek seems to think was faked. --[[User:Cyberbob240|HAHAHA DISREGARD THAT, I SUCK COCKS]] 12:08, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
| |
| :::::::finger, yeah.--{{User:J3D/ciggy}} 15:52, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
| |
| Misconduct because giving Iscariot the benefit of the doubt shakes any trust I had in Nubis's judgement! Seriously though this whole case is actually the first I have ever seen that should be counted as vandalism, there is no possible way it can be regarded as good faith. --[[User:Honestmistake|Honestmistake]] 12:18, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
| |
| :You just nearly gave me a heart attack. I thought for a second that you had been promoted. Thankfully you haven't been, so ruling in the same fashion as a sysop is vandalism. See you on A/VB! --[[User:Cyberbob240|HAHAHA DISREGARD THAT, I SUCK COCKS]] 12:37, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
| |
| :I won't rule on the VB case but this something people have been bitchslapped for in the past. Don't do it.--{{User:Nubis/sig}} 13:46, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
| |
| ::Feel free to rule, I won't hold it against you either way... Its not like you can really ban me for a first offense ;) --[[User:Honestmistake|Honestmistake]] 18:13, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
| |
| '''Not misconduct''' - well within the spirit of the policy <small>-- [[User:Boxy|<span style="color: Red">boxy</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Boxy|<span style="color: Red">talk</span>]] • [[The Rules|teh rulz]]</sup> 00:40 18 December 2008 (BST)</small>
| |
| :::Did you miss the section where I demonstrated that Nubis could not act within the spirit of the policy, or do you just disagree with me? -- {{User:Iscariot/Signature}} 21:10, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
| |
| :Going against myself for the second time in this case (if you count my lol' as a contribution), i agree. '''Not Misconduct''' --[[User:Hagnat|People's Commissar Hagnat]] <sup>[[User talk:Hagnat|talk]] [[Special:Listusers/sysop|mod]]</sup> 04:29, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
| |
| ::"''You == Asshole. And that will be my entire contribution to this case. --[[User:Hagnat|People's Commissar Hagnat]] <sup>[[User talk:Hagnat|talk]] [[Special:Listusers/sysop|mod]]</sup> 17:00, 16 December 2008 (UTC)''" - Lying cunt. -- {{User:Iscariot/Signature}} 21:06, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
| |
| | |
| I dunno if I am going to get in shit for commenting on this case. Oh well... here goes, anyway. It's pretty clear tom me that this is technically and by-the-letter-of-the-book a misconduct. However, following the ''spirit'' of the book, it's probably not misconduct -- because the policies clearly state that the rules aren't cut-and-dry, as long as sysops are acting in good faith and the best interests of the wiki, it's acceptable. It's clear Nubis wasn't acting in bad faith here. But it's pretty borderline, either way, IMO. Because... ''just follow the fucking rules, already... don't deescalate before a deescalation is due''... otherwise, you're looking for trouble. Simple enough, no? --[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 04:43, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
| |
| :::All talk regarding a misconduct page belongs on the main page, you cannot be escalated for commenting. -- {{User:Iscariot/Signature}} 21:10, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
| |
| :Wan, it was off by '''7''' edits. '''SEVEN'''. I don't believe we should make users beg for a deescalation. If we really want to use it as a means of reform (not punishment) we should be on top of it. This is no different than giving someone a break on vandalism because you know they meant well but screwed up. Which we do all the time. I think part of the reason we go easy on vandalism cases is because we don't want to deal with deescalation. IMO, the 250 edits is a retarded amount for a person with just one warning when you look at the VB page and see what people get reported and warned for. So giving someone that actually contributes to the wiki the benefit of the doubt in a deescalation and not just in a VB case is the right thing to do to encourage them to be good contributors. --{{User:Nubis/sig}} 17:26, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
| |
| :::Awww, poor baby, is dealing with de-escalations too much for you? Luckily for you, I know [[UDWiki:Administration/Demotions|somewhere you can go]] and make all the pain go away. -- {{User:Iscariot/Signature}} 21:14, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
| |
| ::This 250 edit limit was established when there were more active users in the wiki, like 10x what we currently have. In that day, 250 edits were just easy to get, and warnings would've been struck soon after the month end it was issued. I'd rather change that value lower now, atleast to remove the first warning a user ever receives. Anyway, punishing you for removing a user's warning 7 edits early is laughable, and i pity anyone voting misconduct in this case. --[[User:Hagnat|People's Commissar Hagnat]] <sup>[[User talk:Hagnat|talk]] [[Special:Listusers/sysop|mod]]</sup> 18:11, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
| |
| :::Of course you pity them, you'd be much happier with the power to make shit up and mod the wiki as you see fit. Still contibuting to the case I see.... -- {{User:Iscariot/Signature}} 21:10, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
| |
| | |
| :::250 edits is still stupid easy to get. Suggestions, Developing Suggestions, Categories, Locations updates, comments on user pages, subspace projects, wiki projects, general maintenance tasks. I wouldn't be surprised if I could easily get 250 legitimate edits in less than a day if I tried.--<small>[[User:Karek#K|Karek]]<sup><font face="Monotype Corsiva">[[User:Karek/ProjDev/OmegaMap|maps?!]]</font></sup></small> 00:51, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
| |
|
| |
|
| | ==Misconduct Cases Currently Under Consideration== |
| | ''There are no cases under consideration.'' |
|
| |
|
| Right now this case sums on 3 rulings of not misconduct and 3 rulings of misconduct without punishment. This thrend is not going to change a bit, so let's simply call this over an carry on with our lives. '''Slightly Misconduct''' - bad bad nubis, no donuts for you. --[[User:Hagnat|People's Commissar Hagnat]] <sup>[[User talk:Hagnat|talk]] [[Special:Listusers/sysop|mod]]</sup> 01:23, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
| | ==Concluded Misconduct Cases== |
| | Check the [[UDWiki:Administration/Misconduct/Archive|Archive]] for concluded Misconduct cases. |
