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

Misanthropy

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

See here. --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ ^{#nerftemplatedsigs} 03:46, 7 October 2011 (BST)

In my defence, I'd just like to say, go eat a fuck. 03:57, 7 October 2011 (BST)

Don't you mean "suck a fuck"... just sayin', 'cause "eat a fuck"... that's just silly -- boxy 06:38, 7 October 2011 (BST)

No, no. Eat one. I'll get you a spoon. 07:54, 7 October 2011 (BST)

Misanconduct - editing a high profile, protected page to comply with a mock arbies ruling. Keep the lulz to appropriate areas, thanks -- boxy 06:38, 7 October 2011 (BST)

Misconduct - As boxy and myself on A/VB. Vandalizing protected page is obviously also misconduct. --Karek^{maps 2.0?!} 10:43, 7 October 2011 (BST)

Misconduct - Yeah, sorry but this is pretty blatantly a joke gone too far.--The General ^{T Sys U! P! F!} 11:16, 7 October 2011 (BST)

Not Misconduct see:

--Karloth Vois ^¯\(°_o)/¯ 15:15, 7 October 2011 (BST)

Misconduct. Ban him Immediately. There is no conspiracy to drive people away from the wiki. --^{Hey Sweden!} 16:57, 7 October 2011 (BST)

WHY SO TROUBLE MAKER MISANTHROPY. YOU DON'T NEED TO DO ALL THIS JUST TO IMPRESS LITTLE OLD ME?!?! -- ϑ^anceϑ^anceℜ^evolution 07:18, 8 October 2011 (BST)

I AM A BAD PERSON 18:39, 8 October 2011 (BST)

As a serious breach of community trust, I feel that Misanthropy should be demoted for his actions, and I sincerely hope that the ruling sysops make such a decision.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 11:36, 9 October 2011 (BST)

As I am under consideration for Misconduct for a related edit, I consider myself too involved to rule. -- Spiderzed█ 12:26, 9 October 2011 (BST)

Mis, since when did you start doing anything on Yon's authority? ~ _{17:42, 9 October 2011 (UTC)}

Shit, man, I just spammed a duck. Timing is sheer coincidence. 18:29, 9 October 2011 (BST)

Ducklings always carry with them a ban hammer just as cute and fluffy as they are.       18:58, 9 October 2011 (BST)

Misconduct – And a severe lapse in judgement: namely, paying any kind of attention to A/A, and, especially, taking Yon seriously. Honestly, Mis, I expected better from you. ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 03:45, 13 October 2011 (BST)

Don't be a doofus. He didn't take yon seriously. He didn't take anything seriously (including and most importantly, the wiki), he just did it for a laugh. annoying 04:03, 13 October 2011 (BST)

I am clearly being deadly serious. ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 04:44, 13 October 2011 (BST)

Yeah you didn't vehemently defend misanthropy irrespective of actual obvious guilt. I was a fool for thinking it was serious annoying 08:45, 13 October 2011 (BST)

Attempting to plumb the depths of your sarcasm is making my head hurt. Good job, tiger. ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 13:42, 13 October 2011 (BST)

It's genuinely good to know that I can be so shit that I can induce headaches, that's for certain annoying 00:57, 14 October 2011 (BST)

Ruling (Mis)

Ok, looks to be pretty clearly coming down as misconduct. I think that the warning he would have received for the actual vandalism is sufficient in this case -- boxy 21:14, 9 October 2011 (BST)

I'd favour 2 escalations. --^{Hey Sweden!} 17:45, 10 October 2011 (BST)

I'd actually agree with that. Vandalizing a protected page should be treated rougher than vandalizing a non-protected page simply because of the privs involved. --Karek^{maps 2.0?!} 06:33, 11 October 2011 (BST)

I'd like to point out that my warn history already includes a case for vandalising a protected page, which warranted one (1) escalation. 15:52, 12 October 2011 (BST)

You've done it before and haven't learnt from your previous warning?--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 16:19, 12 October 2011 (BST)

You're actually making an argument for why you should be more than warned. 1. That case honestly is a great example of why the punishment proposed is a relative joke. 2. You went from random redirect to doing it to the main page. 3. Why would we simply warn you when you've had privs for such a short time before vandalizing with them? Or when you have a history of doing it? --Karek^{maps 2.0?!} 17:51, 12 October 2011 (BST)

Comments unrelated to actually producing a ruling have been moved

In-case it's unclear I'm suggesting giving him two vandal escalations or, alternatively escalating all the way to the first ban level since clearly this has both been an issue before, is less than 90 days after his promotion, occurred on the main page, and Mis has shown before not to take a warning as a serious punishment in response to abusing privileges for the sake of his own jokes. --Karek^{maps 2.0?!} 22:28, 12 October 2011 (BST)

If a non-op user had committed two acts of vandalism on high-traffic pages with many months between occurrences, would they receive additional escalations beyond what's traditionally called for? If you give me two for this I'll hold you to doing the same for each similar case from here on in for consistency's sake, and if you're not willing to do that, then why do it here? I don't mind a warning, but I do mind being made an example of without good reason. 23:12, 12 October 2011 (BST)

You're not a non-op and you did it to the main page knowing full well that it's not ok. You don't get to make demands, especially when your demand is for a non-punishment that you acknowledge wasn't a deterrent for even a less extreme version of this same nonsense. --Karek^{maps 2.0?!} 03:23, 13 October 2011 (BST)

Did I say it was okay? No. I said I'm perfectly amenable to a fair punishment for a joke action, not some special-case desire to treat this case differently without any real grounds. You're basically saying that because I was warned once, fourteen months ago, for something similar, and have had that warning stricken for thirteen months, that I now get double escalations. My "demand", which is a strong fucking word for "asking for consistency", is that you don't start making up new standards on the fly. One act of vandalism, one case, no currently active escalations, so one escalation wraps the whole thing up. You've not actually given any reason for additional escalations that could be seen to apply universally, and if these thing's don't apply universally then this isn't a fair process. Consistency. That's all I'm asking for. Sorry, "demanding". 03:32, 13 October 2011 (BST)

If that's what it seems like my stance is then I must be coming off pretty strangely. My stance is that because you vandalized a protected page a simple warning would be ridiculous in the extreme. You performed two acts of policy violation, one of abuse of privileges and one of vandalism and should accordingly be punished for each. Vandalism of admin edit only pages isn't the same as base vandalism, it's a severe problem. I stated my opinion on these types of cases in other parts of the wiki where you were actively part of the discussion and am not aware of any place where what I've said couldn't be consistently applied to all cases. Your comments read as if you're seriously offended at the notion of you being punished for anything more than basic vandalism for doing it to an admin edit only page, the list of which includes all mediawiki pages, all stylesheets, and essential functionality pages like the server access portal(otherwise refereed to as the main page). This case isn't the same as if someone changed a suburb color, why would we ever treat it that way? --Karek^{maps 2.0?!} 12:32, 13 October 2011 (BST)

As for "demand" when you give terms you're demanding. The point of a higher level of escalation is twofold. The first is that in previous cases of related misconduct you yourself made a statement that clearly implied that a warning wasn't considered an actual deterrent or punishment for you(I am referring to "Fucking worth it." in response to an equivalent ruling for a less extreme version of exactly this, consistency would imply that you would consider a warning for this a non-punishment yet again, so why would we do that when the point is to deter and curtail this behavior? This is massively consistent with my stance on the issue as any trip through Hagnat's misconduct archive will quickly make clear. The second purpose is that I don't consider a misconduct warning a punishment fitting of "real" misconduct, things along the lines of incorrect banning, page deletion, using protection to punish users you disagree with, or vandalism of protected pages. These are all issues of gross misconduct just below the level of privacy policy violations. To punish you simply for the vandalism and not for the gross misconduct related to it is special treatment. Again something I've been fairly consistent about over the years. --Karek^{maps 2.0?!} 12:32, 13 October 2011 (BST)

When I give terms that amount to "set new standards and I'll hold you to them", I'm not demanding of you, I'm foretelling my own actions. I still strongly disagree that one (1) single edit can ever be seen as two violations. Whether or not the page was protected doesn't add a second transgression to the case, but compounds the first - you can clearly and justifiably consider the edit to be "worse" than sticking a duck somewhere unprotected, but it still boggles the mind how it's now the equivalent of two actions. And as for the prior case, the fact that it deterred me from making a similar joke for over a year doesn't seem to be your focus - oh no, it happened once before, a long time ago, so I'm the most horrible recidivist active. It's surely more relevant that there has been more than enough productive editing since to strike it, since that's the more recent activity. This has really been an open and shut case that has gotten dragged out unnecessarily by the fact that it's somehow been treated as unusual - first the insistence that it be looked at as two cases, now that it be punished as two cases through one venue. Why? 14:51, 13 October 2011 (BST)

I dunno, I don't judge in my head just in my words. The purpose primary of the two warnings as one punishment is that I can't think of anything else that appropriately represents the fact that vandalizing the main page is more extreme than vandalizing x other page. It's not to try and double punish you, although if that were the case of this being properly treated as two separate cases I'd probably look for a punishment for the vandalism and then a punishment applicable to the misconduct of simply editing an unprotected page. In which case I'd likely recommend something more extreme simply because I have always held the stance of procedural misconduct being worth more than a warning but misconduct not being added to VD. Were that a vandal escalation taken and then a short x length ban that didn't apply to VD I'd actually be more than fine with that too. I don't actually care about your old misconduct case, I was citing it as an example of warnings not actually being a punishment for misconduct but was choosing one specific to you. These are old standards that have been ignored by an irresponsible team for the last little bit of wiki history. Like so many other things of late. --Karek^{maps 2.0?!} 12:04, 14 October 2011 (BST)

A warning seems appropriate. ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 03:45, 13 October 2011 (BST)

No idea what happened to this case and why its being discussed so heatedly . Open/shut misconduct. Just make Mis do some mundane task and be done with it. He spammed a duck for fuck's sake. ~ _{06:05, 14 October 2011 (UTC)}

Lol, on the main page. And it's not so much heated as there are people discussing policy and procedure in an impolite but effective way. I don't know about Mis but for me this is about procedure and what is appropriate vs what has been used recently vs what was long intended. It's intricate, animated, but not actually hostile(ignore the douchery in the comments of course). It's actually a continuation in part of a discussion AHLG and I were having on User_talk:The_General at the beginning of the case. It's a good thing. --Karek^{maps 2.0?!} 12:08, 14 October 2011 (BST)

OK. Carry on, then. I'll just say Misconduct and let you all hash out the punishment. ~ _{22:19, 14 October 2011 (UTC)}

Massive assinine drama over such an open and shut case is Not a good thing annoying 00:38, 16 October 2011 (BST)

Interlude

Currently Box and Rev favour One Escalation, whereas Me and Karek Favour two. Red and Vap are inactive so the rest of you non Mis Sysops should probably make a decision... --^{Hey Sweden!} 17:42, 13 October 2011 (BST)

Pretty much the only non-involved active sysop who hasn't ruled is Axe Hack, and he brought the case, so depending on the rules we're using today, he may not be allowed to rule.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 18:05, 13 October 2011 (BST)

General? He ruled and everything? Oh and can you show me the bringing the case, can't rule on the punishment bit of misconduct as Im lazy. --^{Hey Sweden!} 18:26, 13 October 2011 (BST)

I dunno the General's kind of been fading in and out (as he does) so he may or may not turn up to rule. He's been known to do the epic appear out of nowhere for a misconduct tie break before. And I've never said the can't rule thing, but iirc it's what Karek always says.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 18:32, 13 October 2011 (BST)

There was a time where we didn't even consider it worth having to be said. There's a reason Grim never ruled on cases he made against hagnat. This is the case where you guys started to change that policy. There's more I just don't have time right now to dig through them. Prior to that case there were a number of cases where we prohibited this. --Karek^{maps 2.0?!} 22:23, 13 October 2011 (BST)

That case is not relevant here, for the following reasons: 1) It's A/VB, not A/M, and 2) J3D was wrong: "system operators are specifically given the ability to both report and warn/ban a user." ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 22:32, 13 October 2011 (BST)

Similarly to Revenant (like when he ruled misconduct on a case he brought recently) it's been around longer than that Cyberbob thing. Nubis did it against Iscariot around late 08/early 09 and no one stopped him. I was always in favour of the unspoken rule but I also don't think many had issue with ignoring it when some ops were so inclined to rule on cases they'd brought. annoying 01:03, 14 October 2011 (BST)

It used to be considered good form to admit guilt and punish yourself to end any needless drama when you knew the outcome of a misconduct case, though. Grim didn't like that, though... but what did grim ever liked ? --hagnat 02:15, 14 October 2011 (BST)

The case is relevant not because of it's subject but because of the fact that the discussion took place where multiple sysops state and show that the understanding was clearly that they were expected to recuse themselves from cases of self-interest. Conn's misconduct archive is a veritable cornicopia of escalations for not recusing himself. The Nubis/Iscariot case is oft cited as precedent but have any of you actually read that case? Not to mention that, at least in the case of A/VB specifically we actually prohibited that action until you guys started misinterpreting precedent about a year ago to get away with having a say in cases you brought that weren't clear vandalism even though the matter had been clearly settled In 2006, it's not ok but it's been occasionally overlooked but, now without a shit ton of opposition, often led by myself. Ignore all of that for a moment though. Here is the "precedent" cited in the previous case to justify blatantly ignoring the standard rule applied to Misconduct of not ruling in cases of self interest. It's a case where the "self interested ruling" by hagnat is literally an admission of guilt. EVERY case that has ever been cited as initial precedent is the same. On top of that let me cite another important part of that primary source case. Here is an example of it being blocked on the subject of the case's side too. And finally, since a good point requires and example and explanation of the opposite, Here's one time where it was ignored not allowed but ignored simply because the case was a wikipedia:wp:SNOWBALL.

User:Grim_S said:

This is not a vote - Since i brought the case, and nothing allows me to rule on it, i just want to say that this is my preferred outcome. Im not about to compromise my principles in order to tip something in my favour however. Count this opinion as you will. I should also note that nothing on conndrakas vote refers to the case in question. Its basically one huge personal attack against myself. he could have at least tried to look as though he was ruling on the case, rather than on the involved parties.

One would hope that that there would put the nail in the coffin of this stupid belief that sysops who bring cases can rule on them. You can't, show some judgement fucking deal with it like responsible trusted users plox. --Karek^{maps 2.0?!} 11:51, 14 October 2011 (BST)

It all comes down to your definition of "vested interest". Simply opening a case on VB or misconduct does not automatically mean that the sysop has a vested interest. They simply believe they have a case. Vested interest comes when they have a history of dispute with the reported user, and in those cases they should let the case stand without their input. The alternative is that no sysop can rule on obvious vandalism, but has to report it and let others deal with it, because they are ruling on their own cases. It is less important on A/M, I admit, but still, the simple act of reporting a case does not invalidate that sysops opinion by itself -- boxy 12:44, 14 October 2011 (BST)

It does and should in all but active vandalism cases. I know we(specifically) have had this discussion in the past as well. The early precedent from 2006 shows a clear understanding of that as the intended rule, as you know it's not, by far, the only precedent of reporter ruling being misconduct. The simple act of reporting a case implies a stake in the case before review in all but active page blanking or hostile active vandalism, obviously in A/M that means you don't get a say in reviewing your own claim of misconduct because at that point you're invested in the cases's success not in providing unbiased assessment of it's validity. It's not really that variable, if you charge someone with an act you shouldn't also be judging the case. --Karek^{maps 2.0?!} 13:28, 14 October 2011 (BST)

Your early precedent shows that it there has never been a consensus on the issue. 3 sysops thought that reporting and then banning was wrong, but 3 others had other opinions, 2 of which thought there was no conflict of interest in it, and the other, Xoid, saw the conflict being that the ruling sysop was the target of the vandalism, and so shouldn't have been the one to do the banning (which is the POV that I agree with). I disagree that reporting automatically implies a stake. We report warn obvious (as opposed to "active") vandals all the time without having a stake in the case. I feel it is sometimes prudent to allow another to make a rulings, but if a "tie breaker" is needed, or low sysop activity levels call for the reporting sysop to rule, then they should be able to do so unless they have some real conflict of interest -- boxy 10:48, 15 October 2011 (BST)

Misconduct - I'm in favour of two. If you're going to vandalise and abuse your op powers to do so you deserve more than a slap on the wrist. -- Cheese 21:02, 13 October 2011 (BST)

If it breaks a deadlock, then I agree, a double warning... one for the vandalism, one for misusing sysop privilege to do so -- boxy 10:48, 15 October 2011 (BST)

MASSIVE COUGH.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 00:06, 20 October 2011 (BST)

Spiderzed

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

See here. --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ ^{#nerftemplatedsigs} 03:46, 7 October 2011 (BST)

All I did was to make a crappy edit a bit less crappy by at least linking an explanation for the main page change. Sure, in hindsight, I should have simply rolled it back. But I don't see how my edit made the page worse, not to speak of bad faith. Even a soft warning would be ridiculous, IMHO. -- Spiderzed█ 12:25, 9 October 2011 (BST)

This one is a little borderline. He's adding info on the reason for the idiocy. Should have just rolled it back -- boxy 06:41, 7 October 2011 (BST)

Not Misconduct - Yes, he should have just rolledback rather than adding the link, but adding the explanation isn't vandalism by itself. I'd still recommend a soft warning of "Be more responsible when editing protected pages".--The General ^{T Sys U! P! F!} 11:12, 11 October 2011 (BST)

Should have immediately rollbacked the edit that was obviously vandalism/misconduct. Instead of doing so he just made an irrelevant alteration, irrelevant as it was going to be reverted regardless. He probably did not want to feel left out on the joke, but that's not a proper sysops action. If you see blatant vandalism like that a sysops should always act when possible, maybe ignoring it if you can't be bothered (though still poor), but certainly not toying with it for kicks. A soft-warning really isn't that ridiculous considering this and should it happen again it should just be a warning altogether.-- Thadeous Oakley Talk 19:05, 12 October 2011 (BST)

Actually, there's a point to be made that it's probably not vandalism but, I could see the argument for misconduct. Assisting inappropriate edits isn't something sysops should be doing, someone vandalizes the main page it should be revert on site. Not link to an explanation of the joke. Oh, and get your soft-warnings out of here, you don't non-punish on A/M unless you're trying to shame someone instead of curtail misuse of privileges(the point of this procedure). --Karek^{maps 2.0?!} 22:32, 12 October 2011 (BST)

Maybe for you, but in my opinion soft-warnings can be used to discourage users from making certain actions, nothing more. There's no policy on soft-warnings whatsoever and there's no reason why we couldn't use it on misconduct as well. -- Thadeous Oakley Talk 11:37, 13 October 2011 (BST)

I suppose it could be construed as Technical Misconduct (editing protected page, not reverting silly change, sysop higher responsibility, slap on the wrist don't do it again yadda yadda), although I'm open to being persuaded otherwise.

I'm pretty sure sysops have never been forced to do their job before. If a sysop sees that a spambit has vandalised a page, they don't have to revert and ban the bot. They should, but they don't have to. On that basis, imo, the rulings shouldn't focus on what he should have done, but on the nature of the edit he actually made, and whether or not that was misconduct.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 14:13, 13 October 2011 (BST)

There is an important distinction between your example and this case. Namely, that if you for whatever reason do not ban a user, you are not using sysop powers, therefore by definition it cannot be misconduct. On the other hand, editing a protected page is a sysop-only power, and Spiderzed's edit played along with the “joke”, thereby implicitly approving of the vandalism (else he would have reverted it), thus Misconduct.

That said, TRWTF was that farce of an Arby's case being allowed to proceed as long as it did. ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 22:22, 13 October 2011 (BST)

Btw, it may not be clear from my previous statements, like User:Revenant I believe this to be Misconduct for most of the same reasons. We've punished intentionally ignoring vandalism before. It's more than procedural certainly. --Karek^{maps 2.0?!} 11:57, 14 October 2011 (BST)

Also, I want everyone who uses templates and formatting in section headers to die, please. ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 03:50, 13 October 2011 (BST)

Agreed.--Karek^{maps 2.0?!} 11:57, 14 October 2011 (BST)

Inafire! -- boxy 10:50, 15 October 2011 (BST)

What a fucking stupid case. He looked at it and made the right move. Fuck you axe. annoying 04:00, 13 October 2011 (BST)

What you say?!? He didn't update the wiki news box to announce the change – a heinous crime of the highest calibre. We should throw the book at him! ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 13:52, 13 October 2011 (BST)

.....EXACTLY annoying 05:24, 14 October 2011 (BST)

Hahaha. Never change, wiki admins! --Karloth Vois ^¯\(°_o)/¯ 12:35, 14 October 2011 (BST)

Concluded Misconduct Cases

Check the Archive for concluded Misconduct cases.