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.

Boxy

Closed this policy prematurely, stating that it was "humorous" - despite my stated intent that I fully intended to have it get passed (or failed) and thus warned and/or banned as a result.
I am, and was, serious as a heart attack.
And come on: you know that a misconduct case is the logical - nay, required - next step in this entire farce. The past week has shown that the community is perfectly willing to throw up stupid misconduct cases, so adding one of my own is par for the course.--Jorm 06:31, 5 June 2008 (BST)

"serious as a heart attack". Uhm, no: no, you're not. Heart attacks can kill: you're just being vaguely irritating. Try "serious as a zit", and you're pretty much there. --Funt Solo ^QT 14:14, 5 June 2008 (BST)

Nubis

Since when did Nubis become the sysop pinata? Last time I checked, he was doing a lot to keep this wiki going. --Akule ^{Maker of fine, hand-crafted UDWiki sass since 2006 -- Akule School's back in session™} 18:18, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Three cases in as many weeks, all concerning the same fucking thing. He doesn't learn or take into account that these cases are being brought because the community expects and demands that he follow the policies laid down. His combative attitude and the inability of the rest of the sysop team to follow the same policies and rule misconduct are just exacerbating the situation. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 18:27, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Combative? By basically saying one thing to defend myself then ignoring the page for a while I am being combative? I'm more combative when I defend others. Maybe the rest of the sysop team are applying motive and intent to the actions instead of just blindly following policy. I guess you aren't used to seeing "humans" review these cases instead of the Grim machine. --– Nubis ^NWO 03:58, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

I was under the impression that the stance was that sysops were considered to be trusted users and that "System operators, as trusted users of the wiki, are given the right to make judgment calls and use their best discretion on a case-by-case basis. Should the exact wording of the policies run contrary to a system operators' best good-faith judgment and/or the spirit of the policies, the exact wording may be ignored. " Although, we can apply that to anything can't we? ;) --Akule ^{Maker of fine, hand-crafted UDWiki sass since 2006 -- Akule School's back in session™} 02:18, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

That would be the problem that comes with using it to freely, yes. Although, since the one major problem that does come up is that deleting templates increases the unused images list and fast-tracks some images to the scheduled deletions pile there certainly are some reasons why it might be worth mentioning before doing, much like we don't delete transclusion only pages on site(all recruitment adverts). An argument can be made why this isn't regularly advise-able and that seems to be the whole point.--Karek^maps?! 23:52, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

He's caught the Hagnat flu. Although some of it is just people jonesing for Grimotene.--Karek^maps?! 21:13, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

You speak like the Hagnat flu is a bad thing... boy i wish that was more contageous --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{talk mod} 21:19, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

It's normally innocent and harmless resulting in a stuffy nose and light head but, sometimes it can get real bad and lead to lack of memory and eventual demotion.--Karek^maps?! 21:28, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

"...deep down inside you long for a cold-hearted sysop to lower the rate of stupid suggestions, brutalize vandals, and rule you like a King!" --Akule ^{Maker of fine, hand-crafted UDWiki sass since 2006 -- Akule School's back in session™} 02:18, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

_{^that's called satire and is only meant as a jest.} --Akule ^{Maker of fine, hand-crafted UDWiki sass since 2006 -- Akule School's back in session™} 02:22, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

<3 Sideshow Bob!--– Nubis ^NWO 03:58, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Status lines

Fellow Sysops Please Note: I added a section to each of the current cases so that we can keep a better tab on each of the cases...IF you vote please feel free to change the vote tally and thenoverwrite the sig for time stamp purposes. This should help us keep track of things a little easier and able to archive when we hit the magic number of majority which I beleive is 5 at the moment (10 active sysops -1 for who ever is up on misconduct). Conndraka^{mod TAZM CFT} 10:05, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Another note...I'm not going to get into a pissing match but the point of the status lines is to keep a rolling total cut out from all the blathering if you just want to bury it back with more wall of tripe be my guest...Conndraka^{mod TAZM CFT} 10:22, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your permission -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 10:25 30 December 2008 (BST)

Don't be pissy Boxy, you know you don't need my permission for shit. Just trying to do something constructive that wouldn't end up in a pointless misconduct case, rabid charge of vandalism, or hurting the feelings of a whole group. I seem to have a problem with that. Conndraka^{mod TAZM CFT} 10:27, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Conn has somewhat of a point, it would be helpful in updating them if they aren't replied too and we don't have to get into the question of impersonation at all.--Karek^maps?! 13:58, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Any reason you don't want our convo moved boxy? I can't say i really care where it is, and keeping status relatively clear seems like a good idea.--xoxo 11:07, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

It loses relevance if moved because you were commenting on the actual counts. Your fault it can't be moved anywhere but here, where it will probably end up in a bit.--Karek^maps?! 13:58, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

"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." -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 14:00, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

"Discussion about votes not relevant to the actual case isn't discussion of misconduct it's discussion of discussion of misconduct because it isn't relevant and doesn't fall into that rule". Don't bother looking, I'm quoting myself because it is more correct. --Karek^maps?! 14:09, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

You should be careful not to make duplicate headers when doing this. Linkthewindow  Talk  13:43, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Example case

Some people pointed out that the example isn't a good example. It was suggested that we change it to a formatting example of what a case should look like. Agreement? --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 21:49, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I think that would be a good idea, it needs to be more specific. Maybe we should have multiple examples for different types of misconduct?--SirArgo ^Talk 22:03, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

We really only need one, misconduct is loose. Eh, I might add that I'm finding the example I'm making to be too simple that it's pointless. Anyways....

===[[User:Sysop]]===
[case]

[discussion]

[ruling]

Lawl... remove the example entirely, or do you have a better idea?--  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 22:28, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Nothing really wrong with the example so much as its suggested outcome. There is a long history of not punishing sysops for such trivial issues if they can reasonably claim good faith, that's a good idea in most cases but it does make the example look stupid.--Honestmistake 23:02, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, like I said here, either remove it completely or cut it down to just an example of the initial misconduct report (like what is already a part of the example):

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)

--Midianian^|T|DS|C:RCS| 23:06, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I object to the example calling it "Bad Page". If it is an attack page or otherwise "bad" page it may fall under a scheduled deletion. By putting something that is scheduled or vandalism in the example it gives a false impression of what should be reported. --– Nubis ^NWO 23:30, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

That was just copy&paste of what's already on the page to illustrate what I meant with “report”. Calling it Page is just fine with me. --Midianian^|T|DS|C:RCS| 00:11, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

It should show the 2 usual possible votes, mis and no mis.--xoxo 01:15, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

The current cases

Right, back am I, with the following observations.

• Failing to check deescalations before enacting an escalation is not misconduct, never has never will be.
• Escalating a user above the normal process is misconduct, however we seem to be quick to accept Nubis' claims of "i r stoopid and fuurgot, sorreh", especially given that motive based on past action was the reason that J3D was demoted. Looking at the same principles when applied to this case, it could be drawn that Nubis uses the 'mistaken' excuse and takes a two day ban as a way to avoid further scrutiny by the community and potentially lose his status as sysop. Given his comments on various promotions bids it is clear he sees the status as some sort of qualification as a 'more worthy' user of the community. This is further compounded by the fact his major argument point is my previous comments regarding deescalation rather than any attempt to explain his actions rationally.
• My current 'record' is something I'll look into in the future. However as a discourse has erupted I will note the following:
  • Those boxes on A/VB mean precisely dick. They were created, placed and returned to their position more than once by an unfit former sysop. They were never approved by community vote as with policy and are a way to stealth rule the wiki and circumvent the established process. They carry about as much weight as me putting one on my talk page stating that anyone who edits it must wear a pink tutu and provide photographic proof or they'll get a perma and their goldfish will be drowned.
  • On the subject of me claiming control of my vandal record, as Hagnat conveniently omits, the precedent was made in that case that users do not have control over their records as both (if memory serves) Hagnat and Boxy refused to unstrike the warning and even though found guilty of misconduct Nubis certainly didn't unstrike it. Users therefore have no say over their records as precedent has shown, Nubis using this as his only defence is frankly laughable. For purposes of proving how this is not so, I hereby pronounce that myself and all other users gain complete amnesty from the tragically biased rulings this wiki has suffered from and are to immediately have their records wiped clean. All non adbot perma bans from since records began are hereby rescinded and free balloons should be sent to all those affected and charge to Kevan. Let's see whether they stick to their notion that what I pronounce should be so....
  • The important notion that this brings up is that of the deescalations process. This should be made a weekly sysop task to be performed in the same way as checking the deletions/move queues or moving the archives at the beginning of the month. Putting the onus on individual users is stupid, considering sysops are hiding behind it in this case to push through an unwarranted ban and the process is newbie and meta (the majority of which dont understand the deescalations process, hell some sysops don't) unfriendly. If memory serves, J3D had to approach 3 sysops to gain a deescalation, one of which bluntly responded that he "didn't do deescalations", that's right, sysops get to pick and choose what the fuck they do round here when users approach them with a reasonable request. If this isn't made a compulsory task then I'm personally going to fall back on the excuse that if I request it on a current sysop or crat's page then it counts as me having made the effort. And I'll be putting all my requests on Kevan's talk page.
• I believe Nubis to be guilty of misconduct by negligence for something else, however since as he seems happy to switch between the 'dumb' and 'good faith' excuses, I will pursue this matter after he returns in order to ensure he has no way of pretending to be either dumb or doing it intentionally.
• On the length of the appropriate ban, I'd like it noted that this is the first time I've become aware of this, having logged off of the wiki after my ban was made. The time served by me is until approximately half an hour before this edit, wonder if Nubis will also serve this time? I'll not that more than one sysop has been in various channels of IRC that I'm in for various reasons. Not one thought it reasonable to inform me that my block had been cut short. Misconduct? Certainly not, but extremely poor form from a user group described as trusted.
• As for Conndraka, is making mistakes misconduct? No. Is allowing bias to cloud your judgement and not even bothering to concern yourself of the facts misconduct? Fuck yeah it is. Conndraka did not comment on the case. He ruled on it, making a judgement affecting the community before even looking at the facts. This is no different to him ruling vandalism on a case where the only links provided are constructive edits. J3D was demoted for assisting vandalism even though intent was never adequately proven. Conndraka's vote supported an act of gross misconduct and as I've said before seems to think that the 'i made a mistak :(' excuse is catch all for getting out of these matters. J3D was demoted for doing nothing whilst this wiki was damaged, Conndraka out and out supported it. Let's see if the same rules will apply to this member of a zerging group.
• Finally I'd draw the community's attention to general sysop competence. It has been universally recognised that whatever escalation may be going on my record is not a week ban. I count five sysops that have commented on the Nubis case (Nubis himself, Conndraka, Cheese, Karek and The General). You'll notice that not a single fucking one of them have bothered to go to Vandal Data and even attempt to correct the error.

For now, this is all. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 12:46, 15 March 2009 (UTC)