UDWiki talk:Administration/Misconduct: Difference between revisions
Son of Sin (talk | contribs) (→Current Misconduct Case: new section) |
|||
| Line 23: | Line 23: | ||
::::Agree with vapor. A link to cases concluded in the past ... say, seven days... with a simple summary of the case should be the best way to give the community a good way to keep track of wuts going on with the admin staff --<small>[[User:Hagnat|hagnat]]</small> 20:45, 20 July 2011 (BST) | ::::Agree with vapor. A link to cases concluded in the past ... say, seven days... with a simple summary of the case should be the best way to give the community a good way to keep track of wuts going on with the admin staff --<small>[[User:Hagnat|hagnat]]</small> 20:45, 20 July 2011 (BST) | ||
:::::Yes we all know your hardon for that sort of stuff. If you can be fucked, then do it. I'll just be wiping them, I'd imagine. -- {{User:DanceDanceRevolution/sig4}} 00:52, 21 July 2011 (BST) | :::::Yes we all know your hardon for that sort of stuff. If you can be fucked, then do it. I'll just be wiping them, I'd imagine. -- {{User:DanceDanceRevolution/sig4}} 00:52, 21 July 2011 (BST) | ||
== Current Misconduct Case == | |||
i'm not trying to rock the boat here...i'm only seeking clarity. my question probably doesn't belong here but it's related to the current misconduct case. if i use an open proxy server for personal reasons, and i vandalize several pages while using the proxy (meaning the two violations are initially unrelated), will i be warned/banned for both violations if i continue to violate both policies? if i change the wording and say...i use an open proxy server to intentionally vandalize the wiki, will i be punished for 1 or both?<br> i read the [[:UDWiki:Administration/Policies]]...the proxy policy only has votes on it's page...are the policies for reg users under one umbrella (same punishment for different violations) and do the punishments stack (2 warnings for 2 violations or only 1 warning for both)?<br> | |||
since sysops are held to a higher standard, you all have a misconduct policy, correct? and since the vandalism policy is for all users including sysops, it's a separate issue, correct? so if the intent was mischief, not abuse of sysop power, then that is clearly vandalism using sysop power which is also misconduct. i think intent is the key factor. if a sysop intends to piss people off via vandalism, that's blatant misconduct. the example of misconduct on [[UDWiki:Administration/Misconduct]] is not blatant misconduct. -- <span style="color:black; font-family:Chiller; font-size:medium">[[User:Son of Sin|<span style="color:Black">→'''Son of</span>]] [[User talk:Son of Sin|<span style="color:Black">Sin←'''</span>]]</span> 14:08, 9 October 2011 (BST) | |||
Revision as of 13:08, 9 October 2011
Move all discussions related to a misconduct case to the archive once a verdict has been reached, and general discussion ended.
Last page
Can someone restore this please, my broswer refuses to load the page. :P --Yonnua Koponen Talk ! Contribs 18:32, 7 June 2010 (BST)
Aaaaarrrrchive!
We've got stuff from cases from 2008 and 2009 up there. I would do it myself, but the Misconduct archive pages are protected. --Akule Maker of fine, hand-crafted UDWiki sass since 2006 -- Akule School's back in session™ 22:28, 14 April 2011 (BST)
- Have moved all stuff directly related to individual ops to the respective talk pages. Will figure out the remaining stuff later, unless someones beats me to it. -- Spiderzed▋ 22:50, 14 April 2011 (BST)
- Thanks. --Akule Maker of fine, hand-crafted UDWiki sass since 2006 -- Akule School's back in session™ 00:44, 15 April 2011 (BST)
- Should be Administration/Misconduct/Archive/2008 and Administration/Misconduct/Archive/2009. Both yet to be created. --Karekmaps?! 01:37, 15 April 2011 (BST)
- Should be done. --Karekmaps?! 01:40, 15 April 2011 (BST)
- We just need links to 2008 Archive and 2009 Archive on the general Misconduct discussion archive page. --Akule Maker of fine, hand-crafted UDWiki sass since 2006 -- Akule School's back in session™ 01:50, 15 April 2011 (BST)
- Should be done. --Karekmaps?! 01:40, 15 April 2011 (BST)
archiving cases
Seriously, stop with the archiving cases but leaving all the content on the main A/M page, it's stupid. I don't know who started it or why but it makes shit all sense and just doubles up the chore later on if people put more content on the A/M case. When you archive an A/M case, move it there, don't just copy and paste and leave it for someone else to clean up later. -- ϑanceϑanceℜevolution 04:43, 13 July 2011 (BST)
- And again! Next person who does it I'm going to take a plane, land in their home town and punch them in the schnozz. -- ϑanceϑanceℜevolution 15:51, 20 July 2011 (BST)
- I'd suggest removing the header at the bottom then or just changing it to Concluded Misconduct Cases with a link to the archives. ~
15:57, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
- Whatever involves not leaving the entire contents on two pages.... -- ϑanceϑanceℜevolution 16:37, 20 July 2011 (BST)
- Agree with vapor. A link to cases concluded in the past ... say, seven days... with a simple summary of the case should be the best way to give the community a good way to keep track of wuts going on with the admin staff --hagnat 20:45, 20 July 2011 (BST)
- Yes we all know your hardon for that sort of stuff. If you can be fucked, then do it. I'll just be wiping them, I'd imagine. -- ϑanceϑanceℜevolution 00:52, 21 July 2011 (BST)
- Agree with vapor. A link to cases concluded in the past ... say, seven days... with a simple summary of the case should be the best way to give the community a good way to keep track of wuts going on with the admin staff --hagnat 20:45, 20 July 2011 (BST)
- Whatever involves not leaving the entire contents on two pages.... -- ϑanceϑanceℜevolution 16:37, 20 July 2011 (BST)
- I'd suggest removing the header at the bottom then or just changing it to Concluded Misconduct Cases with a link to the archives. ~
Current Misconduct Case
i'm not trying to rock the boat here...i'm only seeking clarity. my question probably doesn't belong here but it's related to the current misconduct case. if i use an open proxy server for personal reasons, and i vandalize several pages while using the proxy (meaning the two violations are initially unrelated), will i be warned/banned for both violations if i continue to violate both policies? if i change the wording and say...i use an open proxy server to intentionally vandalize the wiki, will i be punished for 1 or both?
i read the UDWiki:Administration/Policies...the proxy policy only has votes on it's page...are the policies for reg users under one umbrella (same punishment for different violations) and do the punishments stack (2 warnings for 2 violations or only 1 warning for both)?
since sysops are held to a higher standard, you all have a misconduct policy, correct? and since the vandalism policy is for all users including sysops, it's a separate issue, correct? so if the intent was mischief, not abuse of sysop power, then that is clearly vandalism using sysop power which is also misconduct. i think intent is the key factor. if a sysop intends to piss people off via vandalism, that's blatant misconduct. the example of misconduct on UDWiki:Administration/Misconduct is not blatant misconduct. -- →Son of Sin← 14:08, 9 October 2011 (BST)
