UDWiki:Administration/Misconduct

From The Urban Dead Wiki
Jump to navigationJump to search
Administration Services

Sysop List (Check) | Guidelines | Policies (Discussion) | Promotions (Bureaucrat) | Re-Evaluations

Deletions (Scheduling) | Speedy Deletions | Undeletions | Vandal Banning (Bots) | Vandal Data (De-Escalations)

Protections (Scheduling) | Move Requests | Arbitration | Misconduct | Demotions | Discussion | Sysop Archives

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

Cheese

As requested:

As Cheese undeleted my user page even though I requested it in the same manner as other off wiki requests, it means he has to be taken to misconduct for doing so. As he undeleted it on grounds that we don't delete user pages and it's patently false through the history of the wiki.

—Iscariot

Opinions? ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾ 15:52, 14 May 2011 (BST)

My opinion is that we finally need to come to a definitive conclusion about allowing or disallowing off-site requests. The issue isn't as much that deletions happen or don't happen based on off-site requests, the issue is that we have no clear stance on it. Be screwed when you carry out such a request, be screwed when you don't. --Oh, and vote on Project Funny, by the way. -- Spiderzed 16:13, 14 May 2011 (BST)
Policy makes no mention of where a request is made, so by default it's allowed if you can contact a trusted user. This is long supported by precedent for e.g. unblock requests. Personally I think this is the most sensible way to run this; sysops who do not object to the extra burden can make themselves available via a wider range of contact methods. I see nobody complaining about users emailing sysops or discussions taking place via IRC, both of which have been used to make requests in the past. ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾ 16:29, 14 May 2011 (BST)
The fact that someone is logging misconduct via email pretty much supports why off-site requests are bad. What's next? Voting on A/BP via email? ~Vsig.png 16:44, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
Does it make it any less Misconduct? Proxy voting would not be permitted, as it would be technically multiple votes by the same user. ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾ 16:49, 14 May 2011 (BST)
Yeah. It kind of does. It just adds more controversy to an already controversial topic. This case will either further split the opinions of the ops regarding off site administrative requests or will finally force consensus. Either way, Cheese shouldn't be held liable for acting as he saw fit in the face of a unprecedented, ungoverned situation. ~Vsig.png 20:59, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
Actually, policy does specify a location. Check the rules for Crit 7 by proxy. It should happen via the talk page. Aichon 08:36, 15 May 2011 (BST)
Also, Crit 7 only exists within the system, and the system specifies that all requests must come through that page. Specifically, at the top of A/SD, it says that "All Deletion Requests must contain the following information in order to be considered" (emphasis mine), then lists the information required for a request, before following up later with, "Once the speedy deletion request has been entered, the request shall remain on this page, where it will be reviewed by a member of the moderation team, and action taken accordingly." All of that points to a system wherein requests are lodged on that page and acted on afterwards, which is why Crit 7 by proxy even needs to exist, otherwise there'd be no need for a proxy rule at all. Aichon 09:21, 15 May 2011 (BST)

May I just point out that this is an undeletion from a year ago which was requested on the undeletions page and no one objected to? Secondly, only the third "precedent" link can actually be considered precedent because the first two hadn't happened yet. IMHO, this is just Iscariot stirring up drama once again; only this time he's trying to do it by proxy so he doesn't even have to bother posting it himself. For someone who is boycotting this wiki, he sure seems to care a lot about what's going on...--The General T U! P! F! 17:05, 14 May 2011 (BST)

He only cares because I brought it to his attention earlier after noticing his user page's protection and checking up on the reasons. Otherwise he'd still be ignoring the place. (FYI, going to sleep now. Will check back later.) ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾ 17:11, 14 May 2011 (BST)
Except that he has a history of posting stupid cases on tenous grounds and requesting ridiculous punishments.--The General T U! P! F! 19:01, 14 May 2011 (BST)
Uhm, General, did you read the same undeletion request I did? Two users challenged it, both former sysops. One(DDR) said he wouldn't misconduct but that it was wrong and the other(SA) was very vocal in his opposition to it. --Karekmaps 2.0?! 19:44, 14 May 2011 (BST)
OK, turns out that my original comment didn't actually say what I intended it to say. What I meant was: "no one objected strongly enough to actually do anything about it". If DDR or SA thought it was wrong then I don't see why they didn't contact the other sysops or bring the issue here; given that they didn't, I can only surmise that they didn't care that deeply about it.--The General T U! P! F! 21:37, 14 May 2011 (BST)
Also, to me, this whole argument seems silly: The point of the admin pages is to make sure that everything is accountable; It's the same logic behind why we haven't allowed admins to delete non crit.7 stuff based on talk page messages (and why it took till March 2009 to approve that). Now, if we're going to start working off the presumption that "trusted users" are *gasp* trusted enough to testify that a user requested something off-wiki then why can't we trust them enough to make other Speedy Deletions based on a request made on-wiki but merely on the wrong page? Why can't we trust them to recognise and delete a blank page without written orders signed in triplicate? Why have we misconducted people for deleting pages that they themselves created as a test? Why did we need to pass a two week vote to allow sysops to delete pages created by adbots?
I don't get it: the only time that the trusted user argument comes up is when someone wants an 'op to act on something where there is genuinely no consensus, but not when the solution is blinding obvious to anyone with half a brain. Iscariot was always a big fan of strictly applying the technicality of the rules in every case and misconducting anyone who might be making decisions based on common sense. Why does the issue of common sense only come up when it's something he wants done? For that matter why is everyone running round in circles and creating drama simply to workaround his self-righteous boycott of the wiki?--The General T U! P! F! 22:12, 14 May 2011 (BST)
Actually we've generally treated it that way for a few years now. However the issue here isn't so much if it's ok to request off site deletions but more if it's ok to overrule another sysop without first going through the proper steps and to ignore the result of when it is brought to those channels. --Karekmaps 2.0?! 23:11, 14 May 2011 (BST)
Yeah, my second post above is more a rant in favour of Ignore All Rules and Use Common Sense than it is an argument in relation to this case. However, I would have thought that whether or not off-site deletions are allowed is pretty relevant to a case where Cheese undeleted a page based and the fact they weren't. To answer the second point: Yes, it sort of is. Sysops are allowed to reverse A/VB and A/PT rulings based on their belief of wrongdoing and before a misconduct case is brought. Should it the page have remained undeleted once the case was ruled Not Misconduct? Probably not. Would it have been misconduct for Cheese to have undeleted the page after the case had finished and in direct violation of the ruling? Certainly. Was it Misconduct for Cheese to undelete it at the same time as bringing the misconduct case? I don't think so.--The General T U! P! F! 11:05, 15 May 2011 (BST)

If you actually read the logs, my exact reason for deleting it was "If he wants it deleted he can come and indicate on the wiki or evidence can be provided (screenshot or irc log) that he wishes as such." I did not at any point mention that we do not delete user pages (that was Thad), my main beef is the off-site request. This case (and the reasoning behind it) is therefore bullshit. -- Cheese 17:07, 14 May 2011 (BST)

Only because it's been a year. Other than that the simple fact is it would have been misconduct if the case was brought up when it should have been. As is we don't just rule misconduct on things that happened ages ago. Also, if you wanted to undelete you would have been required by undeletion policy to have a misconduct ruling against the deleting sysop since the user request was both baseless and challanged. Just so we're all clear on that. --Karekmaps 2.0?! 19:44, 14 May 2011 (BST)
DDR restored Iscariot's signature page shortly after Revenant deleted because he disagreed with deletion. Where are the misconduct cases for these users then? -- Cat Pic.png Thadeous Oakley Talk 20:54, 14 May 2011 (BST)
That was confusion regarding scheduled deletion qualification. Although we can totally do that if you want to push the issue so long as we also clear up issues in crit 7 rules and punish sysops who try and rule on misconduct cases and deletions cases they were involved in. --Karekmaps 2.0?! 21:23, 14 May 2011 (BST)
It was about the same thing as this here.-- Cat Pic.png Thadeous Oakley Talk 21:32, 14 May 2011 (BST)

Karek, why don't we rule on Misconduct cases from ages ago? Nobody brought it up in this case, which was similarly long after the fact and similarly brought by Revenant on behalf of a user boycotting the wiki. Although the case was ruled Not Misconduct, none of the rulings were about the case's timing.--Yonnua Koponen T G P ^^^ 20:20, 14 May 2011 (BST)

That was a case about a ban that, at the time of the case, was being served. So, yeah, that case wasn't something brought up a year after the fact. Also because the ban was valid until a clear request had been made by Grim. --Karekmaps 2.0?! 20:52, 14 May 2011 (BST)
Fair enough, that makes sense. Couldn't really see why the case didn't have a mention, but I get it now. Any precedent of us not misconducting based on an offence happening ages ago? I had a look but couldn't see anything.--Yonnua Koponen T G P ^^^ 21:53, 14 May 2011 (BST)

As long as there is no precedent or policy or any other agreement whether or not off-site requests are allowed for deletions this can't be misconduct. -- Cat Pic.png Thadeous Oakley Talk 20:54, 14 May 2011 (BST)

The precedent should have been dealt with at the time of the request before the undeletion. Also since you're the requester you really shouldn't even be anywhere close to getting involved in ruling on this case. --Karekmaps 2.0?! 21:13, 14 May 2011 (BST)
By that logic the precedent should have been dealt at the time of the request before the deletion. Also, where am I ruling? I'm not, thanks. -- Cat Pic.png Thadeous Oakley Talk 21:17, 14 May 2011 (BST)
Not this shit again. We already had this debate. Expressing your opinion on the case is ruling since your a sysop and this is a sysop actionable page. What other meaning could we take from "this can't be misconduct."? --Karekmaps 2.0?! 21:31, 14 May 2011 (BST)
I'm speaking out as a regular user, not as a sysops otherwise it would have been bolded. Being involved doesn't mean I don't have an opinion. I guess Cheese shouldn't be posting here as well? -- Cat Pic.png Thadeous Oakley Talk 21:41, 14 May 2011 (BST)
I quoted you, you said that it was not misconduct. Your words. You did not say "I am not ruling" you did not say "I don't want my opinion given weight" you said "This can not be misconduct". Please stop acting like everyone else is retarded, your meaning was as clear as it gets. --Karekmaps 2.0?! 21:55, 14 May 2011 (BST)
I still think it's not misconduct. Whoops did it again. However being that I might be involved, I do not intend to let this opinion carry any weight when counting up the rulings. This is why it isn't bolded. It isn't meant to be taken as a syops action. -- Cat Pic.png Thadeous Oakley Talk 22:02, 14 May 2011 (BST)
By the way, the deletion vote didn't need it because it's actually a requirement on A/U. Please read relevant rules before making requests on admin pages in the future. Thanks. --Karekmaps 2.0?! 21:31, 14 May 2011 (BST)
Undeletions may only be granted if the user provides a convincing reason as to why the page should be resurrected, or if the page was deleted as a result of a system operators abuse.

A/U

^Said rule. --Karekmaps 2.0?! 21:33, 14 May 2011 (BST)
I'd say a dispute about the original deletion request possibly not being valid is a pretty convincing reason, and for Cheese it was. How long are we going to walk in circles here? -- Cat Pic.png Thadeous Oakley Talk 21:45, 14 May 2011 (BST)
We're not. That's a claim of misconduct, guess where that has to go to be a valid claim? You can't overrule administrative action on the basis of it being inactionable without also ruling the action misconduct unilaterally which is the definition of misconduct. --Karekmaps 2.0?! 21:55, 14 May 2011 (BST)
Nope, not a claim of misconduct, because neither Cheese for undeleting it, nor Misanthropy for deleting it, can be misconducted for it. This is simply because the issue of whether or not off-site requests can blablabla. The issue isn't mentioned in policy or precedent, nor any agreement like mentioned earlier. Our wikilaw has failed us, because there is no law on this. Therefore neither parties can be held responsible. -- Cat Pic.png Thadeous Oakley Talk 22:09, 14 May 2011 (BST)
System operators are also given the authority to make decisions regarding actions for which there is no governing policy in place. For example, should a particular action for which there is no policy be disputed, system operators may exercise their best judgment to allow or deny it.

A/G

For any administrator-specific actions, if a system operator is found to have been in error, the processes of sysop misconduct may be used to resolve the issue.

A/G

Mis made a judgement call based on lack of prohibition or allowance by policy. Cheese ignored policy and precedent in reversing the judgement call unilaterally without an A/M case. It's actually really clear. --Karekmaps 2.0?! 22:18, 14 May 2011 (BST)
Nice to see the person wabbling about knowing policy completely overlooks the fact that there was a misconduct case. Oh look. Nice talking to you, I'm off to bed. -- Cat Pic.png Thadeous Oakley Talk 22:26, 14 May 2011 (BST)
Actually thanks for that, I missed that case. Misconduct, 1 cheese obviously was not able to rule there based on multitudes of precedent from grim. 2, that was a case of Not Misconduct on Misanthropy's part thus making this action even more clearly misconduct. --Karekmaps 2.0?! 22:35, 14 May 2011 (BST)
But in that case, a majority of sysops ruled to keep the page undeleted, completely supporting what Cheese did...--Yonnua Koponen T G P ^^^ 22:40, 14 May 2011 (BST)
Karek hasn't actually read the case, he's merely and wrongly assuming that Cheese overturned the misconduct case by keeping the Iscariot page undeleted. What actually happened was that sysops team decided that Mis's action was not misconduct but that page was to be remain undeleted thus enforcing Cheese's action. -- Cat Pic.png Thadeous Oakley Talk 22:57, 14 May 2011 (BST)
Incorrect. Boxy is the only sysop with right to rule who was for that and since it was 1:2 in favor of not misconduct with both of those sysops saying the action was correct there was clearly no consensus to keep the page. On top of that DDR was not a sysop at the time but also said the request was valid, though he was ok with keeping the page. You're about as wrong as one person can be when it comes to this whole shenanigannery. --Karekmaps 2.0?! 23:09, 14 May 2011 (BST)
It actually wasn't 1:2 at all, it was 2:2, but went to not because we keep the status quo when it comes to drawn results. Didn't realise that DDR was not a sop at the time, but (and I know it has no bearing on the case) as one of the sysops who didn't rule in that case, I can happily say that I was content with the page staying undeleted at the time.--Yonnua Koponen T G P ^^^ 23:37, 14 May 2011 (BST)
The 2 to 2 count is including Cheese who wasn't allowed to rule because he brought the case. If you want to acknowledge his vote then it's 2 to 3 as you'd also have to acknowledge Mis' which is just stupid. --Karekmaps 2.0?! 23:47, 14 May 2011 (BST)
Sorry, but why shouldn't we count cheese's vote? Because, as you've said numerous times, he put up a misconduct case because he had to. And so, despite the fact that he wasn't an involved party, he isn't allowed to rule? Sorry that's what's stupid. Mis however was an involved party, so no, he couldn't rule.--Yonnua Koponen T G P ^^^ 23:49, 14 May 2011 (BST)
Yes. Like I said, that's the way it's always done. Same as A/VB, same as A/MR, same as everywhere. Involved users stay out of it for the sake of having an unbiased case and a fair review. They get to argue their points, they don't get to have a say in the final determination. That right goes to users with clearer heads and no stake in the outcome. --Karekmaps 2.0?! 01:04, 15 May 2011 (BST)
For the uninformed, this is called conflict of interest and is why I have refrained from ruling. If I did not consider this to be potentially Misconduct, I would not have brought the case. (You should all read that link. Seriously. You'll learn something.) ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾ 01:24, 15 May 2011 (BST)
^Exactly what Thad said. This case can't be resolved either way, unless a clear stance is determined. As we can't punish ops for rules that send mixed signals and might or might not exist, I go with Not Misconduct. Meanwhile, I recommend A/PD to find a stance that is supported by the community, since existing policy and precedent fail to give clear guidelines on the validity of off-site requests. Feel free to return with this case once that has happened. --Oh, and vote on Project Funny, by the way. -- Spiderzed 22:21, 14 May 2011 (BST)
Like I said above, the rules are actually very clear that what Cheese did was wrong. Mis was subject to the judgement call of off site request, Cheese actually had rules governing what he did requiring an A/M ruling of misconduct to overturn Misanthropy's action. If you want to see an example of that I suggest you go into my own misconduct archive for a spell.--Karekmaps 2.0?! 22:30, 14 May 2011 (BST)

There have been no precedents of off site deletion requests supplied (which is the point of contention), and it turns out that Iscariot now wants the page in question kept anyway. That's the reason that such requests should be done on wiki. So that we all know who is making the request, and can check that the right page is going, and if mistakes happen, we can tell if it was sysop error or the user requesting it. Not misconduct -- boxy 23:49, 14 May 2011 (BST)

Agreed but not what this particular misconduct case is about. It's about the unilateral undeletion of the page and the failure to reverse the action once the A/M supported it. Misanthropy's case a year ago was about whether serving that request was correct. I'm fairly certain we can sort what issues remain with that out in A/PD or the Discussion page.--Karekmaps 2.0?! 01:04, 15 May 2011 (BST)

I think the clearest way to establish the validity of the request would be for a relevant log held by either party to the request, i.e. Misanthropy and Iscariot, to be presented. If we can confirm the request, it should be upheld. And as Karek says, policy was clearly violated in the overturning of the request. Thad, if you want more misconduct cases I'd be happy to oblige, but don't you think one at a time as and when necessary is a better approach than overloading the admin pages? ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾ 23:51, 14 May 2011 (BST)

You still want the page deleted? I thought you retracted your A/SD request for the user page to go due to miscomunication? -- boxy 00:07, 15 May 2011 (BST)
Apparently he's decided he does still want it deleted once we've finished with this case. I'm just the messenger. ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾ 00:31, 15 May 2011 (BST)
I have no log, but I will vouch for the fact that I was directly asked to delete the page by Iscariot. I'd also like to point out that Cheese brought me to A/M over the deletion, without any manner of prior contact to ask about the deletion at all, so his undeletion was not only invalid but accompanied by belligerence. If I still had my buttons I'd be voting against the weasel but as is I can only point out from the sidelines that the rest of you should be doing so. Nothing to be done! 00:00, 15 May 2011 (BST)
And I'd probably hassle you the same way I did Thad. Involved users and all. Though your participation is much appreciated. --Karekmaps 2.0?! 01:04, 15 May 2011 (BST)

As I just mentioned above, the rules for Crit 7 by proxy specify that sysops need to be contacted via their talk page. As such, Cheese was clearly in the right for overturning Mis' deletion, since he had a perfectly reasonable basis for believing that the deletion was invalid. That's also why there was a misconduct case aimed at Mis immediately after that, but Mis' actions were upheld on the basis that he was acting in good faith, despite not doing it according to policy. Did he break the letter of the law? Absolutely. But he used his sysop powers in a responsible manner and clearly did what was in the best interest of the wiki, hence why it was ruled Not Misconduct.

Only fools punish people for doing their job, and it looks like that what some of you are doing here, since Cheese was doing his job properly. To make a bad analogy, if Mis were driving over the speed limit in order to save someone's life, and Cheese pulled him over for speeding, we wouldn't really say that either of them were in the wrong. Mis was handling a higher priority, and Cheese was acting as the rules dictated he should act with the information he had available to him. You all are idiots if you punish Cheese for abiding by policy, just as we would have been idiots if we had punished Mis for doing what he did. Aichon 08:36, 15 May 2011 (BST)

So we're now allowed to unilaterally overrule other sysops so long as we can claim it's for the good even if the action gets approved? That's good to know, looks like Grim did nothing wrong.

Cheese actually didn't follow policy in regards to this case. There is no interpretation of the policy that would make that the case except ignoring it completely. The policy states that an act of sysop misconduct and/or a valid reason are required to undelete. The request had neither. It also states that in cases where there are no established rules he's allowed to use his own judgement, there were clearly established rules so that's out too. You don't get to make judgement calls vandalism or misconduct unilaterally like this.

Oh, and by the way Stop bringing up whether mis had the right to delete the page that case was already closed as not misconduct it makes you guys look like you're trying to get him off without actually acknowledging his own actions and are superimposing your own opinion of the whole situation over the facts of the case. --Karekmaps 2.0?! 08:53, 15 May 2011 (BST)
Also keep forgetting you're no longer a sysop. Everything I said still applies though. The requirements for undeletion exist for a reason, you can't just do it at whim. --Karekmaps 2.0?! 09:03, 15 May 2011 (BST)
Please re-read Thad's undeletion request, and I have no idea how you twisted what I said into an acceptance of Grim's actions. Back on topic, Thad said in his request, among other things, that, "Iscariot should have requested his deletion on A/D, not through some private site." Cheese acted on that reason. Given that I've already provided ample links to policy dictating that Iscariot should indeed have done so, Cheese was well within his rights as a sysop to undelete the page. If that's not a valid reason, what is? Aichon 09:21, 15 May 2011 (BST)
That "reason" is an accusation of misconduct actually because Mis had served the request and documented it on the Deletions page. That's also why Cheese made the A/M case so he was well aware of this. So actually no, he wasn't acting within his rights as a sysop. Especially since the case was ruled in Misanthropy's favor validating the serving of the request to delete. Undeleting the page with that "reason" is Cheese deciding that Mis' actions were de facto misconduct and acting to undo them before the case he brought was ruled on which is in fact misconduct on his part. --Karekmaps 2.0?! 09:32, 15 May 2011 (BST)
Nowhere does it say Cheese could only act after the misconduct case was resolved, only stating he has to make one (he did). In that misconduct case the page was kept, thus Cheese his action was okay. Reading isn't that hard.-- Cat Pic.png Thadeous Oakley Talk 10:11, 15 May 2011 (BST)
Uhm what? I'm sorry, it reads like you're saying that so long as he makes a misconduct case it doesn't matter what the outcome is, that he can still treat whatever the case is about as if it were misconduct. --Karekmaps 2.0?! 10:30, 15 May 2011 (BST)
The outcome does matter. In this case people agreed with him since page remained kept. If they didn't agree they could have deleted it again. When someone goes on a massive misconduct or vandalism spree, do I wait with undoing the damage after a misconduct/vandal case has been resolved with other ops? No, we don't. -- Cat Pic.png Thadeous Oakley Talk 10:35, 15 May 2011 (BST)
Oh! So you're basing your reasoning on the fact that the Sysop who closed the case was new and didn't know he was supposed to redelete the page, or for that matter that a sysop bringing a case to A/M isn't allowed to rule on said case? That's much better. --Karekmaps 2.0?! 10:45, 15 May 2011 (BST)
That's an entirely different subject, but the page was kept at the end of the day with no one disagreeing with the result of that case.-- Cat Pic.png Thadeous Oakley Talk 10:53, 15 May 2011 (BST)
I think I get your argument now, and yeah, I can see how you can try to argue it on that technicality. Even so, wow, have things really gotten that petty? I think that's just going overboard on the wiki-lawyering and that it ignores common sense in the worst way possible (i.e. it follows the rules to the detriment of the community that the rules are meant to protect). This case shouldn't exist, just like Mis' shouldn't have existed. That said, I will admit that I can't think of any logical, rational sorts of arguments to counter what you've said, since everything points to you being technically correct. Even so, it's another case where being technically correct is not the be-all and end-all and should not be the basis of the decisions that are made. Aichon 10:17, 15 May 2011 (BST)
There's no wiki lawyering there. The issue I have with it is the same I had with Boxy escalating Grim without a case. Cheese actually made a misconduct case that he had already acted on. That's not a small problem, he doesn't get more say than other sysops. Without that I'd agree it'd be too old to be worth punishment. --Karekmaps 2.0?! 10:30, 15 May 2011 (BST)
Karek, going back to the Grim analogy you seem to be making sweet love to, if the other crat logged on and saw that Grim was demoting other sysops, should they have waited, put up a misconduct case or should they have actually stopped him? Just like when SA deleted loads of pages on the wiki, nobody waited for a misconduct case to be ruled against him, they reverted the edits, pending a case, which is what should rationally be done. it's always been done on A/M, and it's always been done on A/VB. I've seen no reasonable argument otherwise, so I'm going Not Misconduct --Yonnua Koponen T G P ^^^ 10:29, 15 May 2011 (BST)
I'm sorry, what? That was the first time I brought up Grim's coup. No, they shouldn't have. You can't compare the two beyond that Grim was doing what he felt was best for the wiki. The simple point was that that is not a valid justification for ignoring established rules. You can't compare acting against that to acting against a valid page deletion request. The page wasn't blanked as an act of vandalism, it wasn't deleted as an act of misconduct. It was deleted as a request fulfillment and ruled not misconduct. Which, btw, has never been done on A/M when it's documented. Again I refer you to my own Misconduct history. --Karekmaps 2.0?! 10:40, 15 May 2011 (BST)

Props to Iscariot for reaching a very impressive method of being a pain on the wiki without even having to go on it this time. -- ϑanceϑanceevolution 10:26, 15 May 2011 (BST)

Not Misconduct - Astounded with how the same people can have the same argument about the same thing, saying the same shit, over the space of a week. Otherwise as Spiderzed. -- ϑanceϑanceevolution 10:26, 15 May 2011 (BST)

4 to 1 on not misconduct, what a surprise. Someone close this now? I could do it but as an involved user I don't want to upset Karek. -- Cat Pic.png Thadeous Oakley Talk 22:20, 16 May 2011 (BST)

I wasn't aware we'd taken to two day cases now where the majority of contributors haven't even had a chance to see what's happened since they contributed. Wait a week before claiming it closed. --Karekmaps 2.0?! 00:34, 17 May 2011 (BST)
We actually do sometimes. When cough the case is really petty. -- ϑanceϑanceevolution 01:47, 17 May 2011 (BST)
You must have meant unopposed.--Karekmaps 2.0?! 04:19, 17 May 2011 (BST)
hmm no I don't think I meant that. -- ϑanceϑanceevolution 04:32, 17 May 2011 (BST)
A shame, really. All you've done in the last week or two has been run around trying to attack any user who disagrees with you with accusations of laziness, pettiness, dramamongering, and bias. Maybe it's time for you to take your own break from the wiki and come back when it's you can actually behave impartially again. --Karekmaps 2.0?! 06:40, 17 May 2011 (BST)
The irony of that is so catastrophically astounding that I'm literally lost for words. -- ϑanceϑanceevolution 11:57, 17 May 2011 (BST)

After reading everything and mulling it over a bit, I'm going to go ahead and say Not Misconduct. I guess Karek and The General both bring up good points about the technicality of it but really this happened too long ago and the subject, despite being a very old debate, is still controversial. Also, as Spider. Come to a consensus about whether offsite requests should be allowed. Actions can be reverse if they go against that consensus and if an op takes action contradictory to consensus after it has been reached, then maybe discuss misconduct. ~Vsig.png 05:57, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Message from Iscariot

You go away for a year and it seems the stupid has infected the wiki. What I find even funnier is the fact that Karek, a user with whom I've had an interesting history, is the only one who seems to be looking at the facts of the case rather than rule on personal opinion of me or out of spite to try and make me jump through hoops by returning to somewhere I really don't want to be.

Now, instead of all the asides, which I'm sure Cheese is loving because it will let him get away with misconduct, let us return to the facts of the case. The charge is misconduct due to his undeletion. The first thing we must take into account is Cheese's comment when processing the undeletion:

"Agreed and Undeleted. If he wants it deleted he can come and indicate on the wiki or evidence can be provided (screenshot or irc log) that he wishes as such. -- Cheese 17:09, 6 May 2010 (BST)"

Now Cheese is saying here that he undeleted the page because he agrees with the case that was made for its undeletion:

"Whether he wants it or not, since when do we delete users? He's been here for so long, and his name links on allot[sic] pages. Also his talkpage is a soon to be crit 5 trap waiting to be tripped. Just because he decides to leave doesn't mean we should delete his existence on this wiki. I'm also not at all happy with Misantrophy[sic] handling Izzy[sic] request off-site, all sysops actions and motivations should be recorded on the wiki. (in other words, Iscariot should have requested his deletion on A/D, not through some private site)"

So, let's take that apart shall we?

"Whether he wants it or not, since when do we delete users?"
Precedence 3 in Rev's original posting of the misconduct case, and there are any others from wiki history.
"He's been here for so long, and his name links on allot[sic] pages."
And? But? So? Therefore? Page ownership guidelines. There is no 'Stop Red Links Policy' on this wiki.
"Also his talkpage is a soon to be crit 5 trap waiting to be tripped."
Again, page ownership, I could have my talk page deleted at any time I want, or I could have it archived and the archive killed.
"Just because he decides to leave doesn't mean we should delete his existence on this wiki."
OH NO!!11!! Think of teh children!!123! Pointless argument, for a start there are mediawiki extensions that allow all user contributions to be removed. Secondly, all this does is delete a page I own and put a red link in my sig. I'd remind you all that the sig policy states your sig must contain a link to your userpage or somewhere else in your userspace, it doesn't say it has to be a created page.
"I'm also not at all happy with Misantrophy[sic] handling Izzy[sic] request off-site, all sysops actions and motivations should be recorded on the wiki."
I'll state the obvious that this has already been ruled not misconduct. Also, it wasn't misconduct when Conndraka did it, neither has it on any other ocassion where someone has wanted their IP removing from this wiki. So having established that offsite requests do occur and are honoured, a rhetorical question, do having an account at one point on this site reduce your rights? If a image is stolen and the owner emails a sysop, he's entitled to it being deleted, why aren't I?

So, we've established that Cheese agreed with the case that was brought and not one of the 'reasons' contained was valid. Let's look at the exact wording from A/U: "Undeletions may only be granted if the user provides a convincing reason as to why the page should be resurrected, or if the page was deleted as a result of a system operators abuse." Now the second part is out, not only because Mis' actions have been ruled not misconduct, but because Cheese should have waited until the result of the misconduct case was in before following through on the request. So we must look at the first part. As I have shown in my breakdown, there was no convincing reason. There was scaremongering and outright lies, but no convincing reason backed up by precedent. The undeletion therefore, was not permitted under the rules of this wiki. And I can hear the little cogs working in the 'brains' of at least a couple of people about to point out that Cheese can use his 'ignore all rules' card, except he can't in this case, because he very clearly type that he agreed with the reasoning brought in the case. Hoisted by his own petard.

Now, reading the discussion, I think it's time to point out the obvious. Offsite requests have always been allowed, Conndraka proved this. Now some of you might be thinking that this is a different case because Mis didn't put the request on the completed case, but you might remember he doesn't have to, and he shouldn't have to. Sysops are supposed to be trusted users, they use their extra buttons to confirm things whilst still maintaining user privacy and site legality. If a sysop says a new and contributing account has the same IP address as a previously banned one shot vandal account, they are subject to the same penalties, normal users don't get to know the IP address in question, if another sysop doesn't believe them they are entitled to check the evidence. They are not entitled to unban them without checking the evidence. This is what Cheese did in effect. The case was posted at 16:42, 6 May 2010 (BST) and Cheese noted his undeletion at 17:09, 6 May 2010 (BST), less than half an hour later. Would anyone like to say that this was an adequate amount of time to wait for Mis to get in touch with him in response to the query he must have sent? I mean he must have contacted Mis to request to see these logs now mustn't he? That would be the only logical path to take, unless of course it was a parthian shot at me after I'd already left.

So, later at the misconduct case, Mis gets a verdict of not misconduct, meaning nothing he did was against the rules. So why wasn't my page immediately redeleted? If Mis didn't break any rules, not committing misconduct as a sysop, the original deletion must have been valid and it should have been maintained. Instead of doing that, I have to find out about this a year later, and now you've got drama. I take it I don't have to point out that during the course of investigating this clusterfuck I've found multiple incidences of vandalism, one of misconduct and been reminded of one incident of major misconduct (a sysop giving out confidential IP information and the identity of the user it belongs to), do you really want to process that? Or can I have my deserved verdict of misconduct and my page deleting?

What Cheese did endangered the wiki. He should have spoken to Mis first before effecting the undeletion. He did not and thus committed misconduct. Or would you people rather have a sysop take an offsite request, delete something and then be overruled as Cheese did to Mis without good reason and then leave Kevan open to legal proceedings? You open that door and Kevan will shut down the game rather than risk being liable because you all can't get your affairs in order.

And if any of you were wanting a technicality to hang it on, let's just look back at A/U: All Undeletion Requests must contain the following information in order to be considered:

  • A link to the deletion request in question. Preferably bolded for visibility.

Any undeletion request that does not contain these three pieces of information will not be considered, and will be removed by a system operator. There was no link to the deletion case in question, or even to the log that showed Mis deleting my page. The case should not have been considered by Cheese.

That must be enough obvious reasons, precedences, common sense and technicalities to please all of you. Get it sorted. Oh, and a lesson in precedence for all of you, Rev is allowed to rule on this case, it's called the Nubis precedent, any sysop who brings a case (unless they state otherwise) is assumed to be ruling misconduct. I can teach you many more such lessons if you'd like.

And I almost forgot about you. Not only have you been making far too many comments on this case, in which you have a clear COI, and trying to cover your arse. But bringing this wiki back to my attention has also meant I've had the opportunity to look at your exploits. Not only are you not going to survive your next reevaluation (as I know who the crats are going to be at the time, so you better start planning when you're going to 'Pull a General') but someone's been very bad. Can anyone explain to me the good faith reason for creating this page? Edits to this wiki that are not in good faith are vandalism. This page is an attempt to subvert a legal deletion, directly go against the wishes of a page owner, and by hiding it in the edit history is clearly and attempt to hide his actions. Needless to say, someone can start and A/VB case against him for this and I want it deleted.

Love, hugs, kisses and fluffy kittens, Me."

—Iscariot

Assuming the “Nubis precedent” is correct (didn't see a link, too tired to look right now), I will be ruling Misconduct. ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾ 12:35, 17 May 2011 (BST)

Tl:dr. You're caring far too much for someone who has "apparently" left the wiki. The main bit I was agreeing with in the undeletion request was the off-site request, not the user page itself. Off-site requests should not be accepted, plain and simple. There's no guarantee the person requesting is actually who they say they are. Least on here (aside from the odd exception) you can be pretty sure. -- Cheese 12:48, 17 May 2011 (BST)
Especially when "If a user leaves a sysop a note on their (i.e the sysop's) talk page requesting deletion of a page that falls under Crit 7, the Sysop may delete the page on sight, making clear in the edit summary that the user requested it via talk page. " means the deletion was illegitimately done regarding how the rule was treated at the time and you were simply reversing that action until further notice. Wiki lawyering and highlighting single sentences out of context can harm arguments as much as make them, guys. -- ϑanceϑanceevolution 13:38, 17 May 2011 (BST)
You are caring too much for a case which is petty. Even if it is ruled misconduct, any penalty associated with it will be (or at least should be) minimal. And if Iscariot wants his user page deleted, have him do it himself in the wiki. --People's Commissar Hagnat [talk] [wcdz] 12:54, 17 May 2011 (BST)
Also, you speaking for izzy is starting to get annoying. He is capable of defending himself, if he wants to speaks in this wiki, have him request his self-imposed ban lifted. --People's Commissar Hagnat [talk] [wcdz] 12:56, 17 May 2011 (BST)
Please don't. I don't think my internet can handle any more text walls. -- Cheese 12:57, 17 May 2011 (BST)
He is an important piece in the staging proccess for Misconbitragnarok --People's Commissar Hagnat [talk] [wcdz] 13:12, 17 May 2011 (BST)

I guess I might as well take the time to explain something -.-' Firstly, we (or I'll at least speak on my own behalf) aren't being biased towards or against anyone in particular, the only 'evidence' for that is the actual accusations at hand which, as usual, have been thrown about without evidence or explanation. Just because some of us are ruling from our opinions of the matter which we've kept since this shitfest started does not mean that we are biased. Any user, if unable to change our opinion after a week of crooning, does not mean they have proved that we are biased. We have differing opinions of how this should be treated, I think the sooner we all respect that the sooner we can all get on track in discussing how the crux of the issue (off-site deletion requests) is to be handled. -- ϑanceϑanceevolution 13:10, 17 May 2011 (BST)

Some much whining for someone that doesn't want anything to do with this wiki. Looks like I'm getting some special attention from him too. I really don't get the conflict of interest, but I'll have you know it's not a big secret I won't be going for a second term. As for duping your userpage in my userspace, I don't really remember the purpose of it, but it's an issue more suited for arbitration rather than vandalism me thinks. Since I don't really feel like going there for something so trivial, I'll speedy delete if you insist. -- Cat Pic.png Thadeous Oakley Talk 13:29, 17 May 2011 (BST)

Jackass -- boxy 13:53, 17 May 2011 (BST)
Feeling better now? -- Cat Pic.png Thadeous Oakley Talk 14:01, 17 May 2011 (BST)
Sigh, leave thad alone. I don't know why shit like that is being brought up, especially in a serious post regarding the case. It's irrelevant : | -- ϑanceϑanceevolution 14:10, 17 May 2011 (BST)
However, a sysop taking unilateral action does not in itself constitute vandalism or misconduct, provided the action can be shown to have been taken in good faith and/or is backed up by other sysops

—Revenant (bolded parts are actually bolded in original quote)

Figured I'd have some fun with this overused Cquote template with a quote I found while looking for the Nubis precedent. -- ϑanceϑanceevolution 14:10, 17 May 2011 (BST)

Also, Nubis precedent resides in this case, for those who are interested. -- ϑanceϑanceevolution 14:10, 17 May 2011 (BST)

And people complain about how i used to rule the wiki... you see, if it wasn't for me we wouldn't have set precedence --People's Commissar Hagnat [talk] [wcdz] 14:13, 17 May 2011 (BST)

Iscariot "I refuse to edit the wiki but still pen a 1000-word essay on worthless pedantry". The "someone else can start an A/VB case against Thad" bit was the most laughable. Jesus christ, what an arsehole. --Karloth Vois ¯\(°_o)/¯ 14:16, 17 May 2011 (BST)

Wow, actually taking the time to read Iscariot's screed was painful. The borderline threats ("legal case to Kevan") are just hilarious. I wonder if he has any more toys to throw out the pram? What's worrying is how serious everyone is taking this. --Karloth Vois ¯\(°_o)/¯ 14:23, 17 May 2011 (BST)

Hang on, is Iscariot seriously threatening a lawsuit if the sysops don't rule misconduct?--The General T U! P! F! 14:23, 17 May 2011 (BST)

Fuck's sake. I was actually on Judith's side for awhile (for the first time in my history), but this shit is getting ridiculous. Izzy, stop being an emo bitch and come back and take care of this shit if you're so fucking concerned. And Rev, please, stop enabling this twat.--

| T | BALLS! | 14:24 17 May 2011(UTC)

Recently Concluded Misconduct Cases

There are currently no recently concluded misconduct cases. Check the Archive for older cases