|
|
| (5 intermediate revisions by 4 users not shown) |
| Line 43: |
Line 43: |
|
| |
|
| ==Misconduct Cases Currently Under Consideration== | | ==Misconduct Cases Currently Under Consideration== |
| ===[[User:Aichon]]===
| | ''There are no cases under consideration.'' |
| This sysop clearly has too much time on his hands and is too personally involved with the job. I recommend demotion. --[[User:Civet|Civet]] ([[User talk:Civet|talk]]) 16:01, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
| |
| :Obvious vandal alt is obvious. - {{User:Krazy_Monkey/sig}} 16:03, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
| |
| ::Thank you for your support. I hope Kevan takes notice promptly. --[[User:Hatredo|Hatredo]] ([[User talk:Hatredo|talk]]) 16:04, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
| |
| | |
| I'm just leaving this here so the other sysops can get a chuckle before it's deleted. {{User:Aichon/Signature}} 16:29, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
| |
| | |
| ''Myskohndookt.'' Your punishment is to be promoted to bureaucrat. --'''<span style="font-family:monospace; background-color:#222222">[[User:Spiderzed|<span style="color:Lime"> Spiderzed</span>]][[User talk:Spiderzed|<span style="color:Lime">▋</span>]]</span>''' 13:23, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
| |
| | |
| It's not even funny, It's just sad. '''Sad''' --[[User:Rosslessness|<span style="color: MidnightBlue ">R</span><span style="color: Navy">o</span><span style="color: DarkBlue">s</span><span style="color: MediumBlue">s</span><span style="color: RoyalBlue"></span>]][[User_Talk:Rosslessness|<span style="color: RoyalBlue">l</span><span style="color: CornflowerBlue">e</span><span style="color: SkyBlue">s</span><span style="color: LightskyBlue">s</span>]][[User_Talk:Rosslessness/Quiz|<span style="color: LightBlue">n</span><span style="color: PowderBlue">e</span>]][[Monroeville Many|<span style="color: PaleTurquoise">s</span>]][[The Great Suburb Group Massacre|<span style="color: PaleTurquoise">s</span>]]<sup>[[Location Page Building Toolkit|<span style="color: DarkRed">Want a Location Image?]] </span> </sup> 16:23, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
| |
| | |
| I would like to add a note that I did read of another individuals complaint that seems related to these recent events. I'm not sure if this is the place to really mention this but I can't really think of anywhere else to mention this. I'm not gonna take a side in this but I thought you guys should see what this guy wrote for yourselves. http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php/Envy/News --[[User:JarethBee|JarethBee]] ([[User talk:JarethBee|talk]]) 00:09, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
| |
| :There's certainly an argument to be had that just as there should be no place for a zerger in the Urban Dead game, there should be no place for their activities on the wiki. Traditionally, a users actions in-game have no bearing on whether or not they are banned on the wiki, and wiki sysops have no control over banning a player in-game. So there's a division here. I don't know much about who is who isn't a zerg here, so I have little to comment on that. I am interested in what other wiki users would have to say about this. (However, vandalizing the Jack's page is completely counter-productive and will continue to get those responsible banned.) --{{User:A Helpful Little Gnome/Sig}} 01:44, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
| |
| ::I’m certainly not a fan of zergers, particularly [[User:Aichon/Characters|the ones I was made aware of who are ineptly posing as me]], and even though I haven’t played the game in over a year I still detest when I’m put in a position where I end up defending them. Even so, it’s my duty as a sysop to respond to actions that occur here on the wiki rather than what happens in the game. In that regard, I exercised my duties appropriately, much to my personal distaste if I did so in the service of a zerger. It may not be something any of us like, but it isn’t Misconduct, so if anyone would like to discuss it further I’d be happy to do so over on my talk page. {{User:Aichon/Signature}} 02:09, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
| |
| :::Yes, of course it isn't remotely misconduct. {{tongue}} I was curious if there was a larger conversation to be had about this thing... if a zerger shouldn't be allowed on the wiki at all, regardless of their wiki conduct. --{{User:A Helpful Little Gnome/Sig}} 02:13, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
| |
| Think I'll throw my hat in the ring here.
| |
| *First, as I understand, it the point of the wiki is to catalog everything that happens ingame as possible. We are a part of the game. You can believe whatever you like about our group. As our current spokesperson, I've made our official statement known. That seems to be good enough for plenty of other highly suspected zerg groups on here. If you choose to believe lies about us, that's your right. But we also deserve the right to be here like anyone else then....as long as we do not violate any rules. Which we have not.
| |
| *Second, what is interesting to me is how Murderess came to the conclusion that The Dead were attacking our page, when all I saw were newly created accounts? How did he know they were with The Dead? Then he goes on Aichon's talk page (where we were having a discussion about the Vandalism) and states he thinks everyone should join The Dead and spouts some comments that I'm not quite sure where they came from, or how they are relatable. So...Murderess supports joining the group that was supposedly vandalism the wiki, ignoring admins requests, and trying every possible to cheat the system/break the rules? Not to mention after Murderess commented his "news" page not long before another alt attempted vandalism. Then a couple newer accounts just happen come on here, and side with them group doing the abuse (one of which actually had a PKer alert on it for a character that was in The Dead). And we're the real issue? Bread crumbs indeed...
| |
| *Third, We did not make the alts that Murderess claims on his page. I didn't even know who this person was, and last I checked our past incarnations haven't had interactions on thew wiki with him either, until he made the first step by out of the blue by including himself in the discussion on Aichon's page. Isn't it unusually odd, and majorly coincidental, to not only find these alts right at this specific time, but to be able to "randomly" find them so easily in a game of this size. And not one but TWO. Amazing. Another point, why would make a bad alt about someone who rightly defended and protected us despite his own misgivings about our group. If anything, that's even more reason to give kudos. Why take issue with people simply doing their jobs? Especially, since they doing this work for free, and to protect what the wiki is supposed to stand for...Right of representation to everyone regardless of what happens in game.
| |
| *Fourth, However, Murderess first starts off, on their news page, spouting how the Sysops are the bad guys, ect. With so little respect, it seems like he is the perfect candidate to for the true culprit. Most of have an IQ above 70 (MR level), so we can see how everything that's being done here is actually more disturbing of a person than simple immaturity and stupidity.
| |
| *Fifth, It should also be of note that given we're at the top of the stats chart, that would also behoove The Dead of trying to get us removed too. While a silly statistic like that has no relevance, I could see where someone who has no life, makes tons of alts just to play with himself, outright abuses the wiki and those who are charged to oversee it, acts like the wiki is just another place to play games instead of respecting its purpose to the game, and then does everything they can to fabricate lies when all else fails, would desperately need to find validation in the game (even if they can't win, or even play at a mediocre level without cheating). I had planned to give a more detailed history, this week, about our group, it's history, and the differences between some perceptions vs realities. But I will probably wait until this nonsense is settled. It's ok, I can be patient. --[[User:The Jack|The Jack]] ([[User talk:The Jack|talk]]) 03:22, 30 April 2018 (UTC)
| |
| | |
| That's a whole lot of goshdarn words to cover up your blatant zergery. Funny how you're the only member of your particular group to ever communicate in any format. Really gets the noggin joggin. -Your Friendly Globetrotter Representative Sniper4625
| |
| | |
|
| |
|
| ==Concluded Misconduct Cases== | | ==Concluded Misconduct Cases== |
| Check the [[UDWiki:Administration/Misconduct/Archive|Archive]] for concluded Misconduct cases. | | Check the [[UDWiki:Administration/Misconduct/Archive|Archive]] for concluded Misconduct cases. |
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
There are no cases under consideration.
Concluded Misconduct Cases
Check the Archive for concluded Misconduct cases.
