UDWiki talk:Administration/Misconduct

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. --Karek^maps?! 01:37, 15 April 2011 (BST)

Should be done. --Karek^maps?! 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)

I made an edit request. -MHSstaff 01:55, 15 April 2011 (BST)

Actually, forgot those on my pages too. --Karek^maps?! 02:01, 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. -- ϑ^anceϑ^anceℜ^evolution 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. -- ϑ^anceϑ^anceℜ^evolution 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.... -- ϑ^anceϑ^anceℜ^evolution 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. -- ϑ^anceϑ^anceℜ^evolution 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?
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)

The answer to your first question is that the proxy being used is IP banned, and if it can be connected to a user then that user is warned. 16:31, 9 October 2011 (BST)

still unclear...a proxy IP is banned for being used or for being used by a vandal? -- →Son of Sin← 20:26, 9 October 2011 (BST)

Both. Using one is considered vandalism regardless of the edits made since proxies are outlawed. 20:32, 9 October 2011 (BST)

Simply using an open proxy is not vandalism, and the user doesn't get a warning for it unless vandalism is involved. The open proxy, however is still open to being blocked at any stage because this wiki has adopted the wikimedia policy on this subject -- boxy 21:08, 9 October 2011 (BST)

i understand.

Any abuse of sysop powers is misconduct. Misconduct is basic intent in that either intention or a lesser degree of intent is sufficient. Mischief is a lesser degree of intent is completely sufficient in this case.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 16:47, 9 October 2011 (BST)

i understand now. vandalism is misconduct, plan & simple. misconduct trumps vandalism, plan & simple. -- →Son of Sin← 20:26, 9 October 2011 (BST)

Sysops arn't held to a higher standard on a day to day basis (when considering A/VB cases), it's just that they have a higher level of access to tools, and so a separate area to police misuse of these tools is needed to police misuse of sysop only abilities (ie. misconduct). Where they can be held to a higher standard, is when their position is being re-evaluated -- boxy 21:08, 9 October 2011 (BST)

okay...so if this was about an unprotected page, it would only be vandalism?

and was this all a joke? if so, you guys are GOOD! you got me good if this is a joke... -- →Son of Sin← 21:40, 9 October 2011 (BST)

The case is not a joke, the edit the case is about was done as part of an ongoing joke over at A/A though. --Karek^{maps 2.0?!} 23:48, 9 October 2011 (BST)

Moved Comment Spam

The following comments were moved from the A/M case for Misanthropy to the talk page for the sake of keeping the case discussion relevant

There's little point in giving him two misconduct warnings for the same thing at once, unless you mean to hand out a vandal and misconduct warning out separetely but even that is subject to debate.-- Thadeous Oakley Talk 19:11, 12 October 2011 (BST)

In Fact, since it's so obvious that he ignored his previous warning and did this anyway, I'd personally say that he needs a much more severe punishment to merit the fact that he's done the same thing twice, and clearly could remember his last warning for it.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 20:05, 12 October 2011 (BST)

How about letting him clean up the spam(bots) on his own for two weeks? Every spampage/bot missed will lead to additional escalations. Or let him speedy delete banana tactics under crit 2. Wait! Even a better idea! Punish him by forcing him to write a good anti-meatpuppet policy, rewriting it until it passes voting if necessary. The possibilities are endless. -- Thadeous Oakley Talk 20:17, 12 October 2011 (BST)

How about we put a picture of a duckling on his user page... or would that be overstepping the mark, into cruel and unusual punishment? -- boxy 21:53, 12 October 2011 (BST)

Demote him and promote Goribus in his stead.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 22:01, 12 October 2011 (BST)

Wow do you guys really know how to wast people's time with inane comments where they aren't needed or wanted. We're actually discussing the punishment here, stay out of it you're not involved in the decision. --Karek^{maps 2.0?!} 22:23, 12 October 2011 (BST)

User comments have always been permitted on misconduct, Karek.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 22:31, 12 October 2011 (BST)