|
|
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
| {{Shortcut|[[A/M]]}} | | {{Shortcut|[[A/M]]}} |
| {{Moderationnav}} | | {{Administrationnav}} |
|
| |
|
| 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. | | 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== | | ==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. | | 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. | | 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. | | 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 will mete out the punishment (if deemed necessary), and then move the case to the [[UDWiki:Administration/Misconduct/Archive|Archive]]. | | 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 [[UDWiki:Administration/Misconduct/Archive|Archive]]. |
|
| |
|
| ==Administrative Abilities== | | ==Administrative Abilities== |
| Line 43: |
Line 43: |
|
| |
|
| ==Misconduct Cases Currently Under Consideration== | | ==Misconduct Cases Currently Under Consideration== |
| <!--When there are no cases currently under consideration, place " ''There are no cases currently under consideration.'' " below. -->
| | ''There are no cases under consideration.'' |
| ===[[User:Nubis|Nubis (3)]]===
| |
|
| |
|
| We finally have an explanation for Nubis' inconsistent arguments and (I quote myself) "come once a month and fuck up something" attitude. [[User talk:Nubis|Here]] DCC announces that he's had control of Nubis' account for at leased a year, since Grim's [[UDWiki:Open Discussion/System Operators, which ones do you trust|sysops trust]] stunt. This is marginally confirmed by checkuser, which, as far back as the logs go, have confirmed that a majority of their edits have come from the same IP. This is a breach of sysop trust, yada yada, but not technically a problem if the power of multiple accounts isn't abused.
| | ==Concluded Misconduct Cases== |
| | | Check the [[UDWiki:Administration/Misconduct/Archive|Archive]] for concluded Misconduct cases. |
| However, [[UDWiki:Administration/Bureaucrat Promotions/August 2009|this]], brought up by Animesucks, is multi-voting, which is A/VBable regardless. Rather than take this to A/VB, I'd like the sysops to first make up their mind on whether DCC and Nubis are the same person, based on the evidence. If they are the same person then there isn't anything that can be done by his multi-account abuse except the vandal escalation as per the above vote, and this A/M case will be not misconduct. If they are different people with the access to the one account, Nubis has been in breach of sysop conduct by allowing other unqualified users use his account. --{{User:DanceDanceRevolution/sigcode|Chartreuse}}-- 09:11, 10 September 2009 (BST)
| |
| | |
| I am as about as sure as is humanly possible that they are the same person. {{User:Cyberbob240/Sig}} 11:25, 10 September 2009 (BST)
| |
| | |
| Yarp. As bobs. -- {{User:Krazy_Monkey/sig}} 11:32, 10 September 2009 (BST)
| |
| | |
| Didn't Nubis also claim to be Sir Argo too? Everyone took it as a joke (I know I did...) but did anyone check? --[[User:Honestmistake|Honestmistake]] 12:01, 10 September 2009 (BST)
| |
| :Nubis is not SirArgo. Are we going to start getting paranoid about literally every "hahaha im actually [user] guys" joke people make now? {{User:Cyberbob240/Sig}} 12:06, 10 September 2009 (BST)
| |
| ::Not getting paranoid... I merely mention it as an interesting aside. In any event I am sure Argo will be along soon to tell us he is not really a cat :) --[[User:Honestmistake|Honestmistake]] 17:01, 10 September 2009 (BST)
| |
| :::I'm cyber bob too. --[[Image:Globetrotters_Icon.png|15px]] '''[[User:DCC/Suggestions|#99]]''' <sup>''[[User:DCC|DCC]] ''</sup> 19:39, 10 September 2009 (BST)
| |
| ::::PS Nubis is back. And where is the misconduct in this case? --[[Image:Globetrotters_Icon.png|15px]] '''[[User:DCC/Suggestions|#99]]''' <sup>''[[User:DCC|DCC]] ''</sup> 19:39, 10 September 2009 (BST)
| |
| ::::Hmm. I'd actually believe that.--{{User:SirArgo/Signature}} 02:58, 11 September 2009 (BST)
| |
| :::::That's impossible - I can't be Imthatguy ''and'' DCC at the same time! {{User:Cyberbob240/Sig}} 03:02, 11 September 2009 (BST)
| |
| ::::::Well, whoever you are, I am agreeing with you a lot lately and it makes me wonder why. But hey, I'm agreeing with you to the point that I voted for you, so things are good whatever they are. This whole place is tripping me out.--{{User:SirArgo/Signature}} 03:05, 11 September 2009 (BST)
| |
| Fucking mind games. I agree, IP details strongly suggest that they're the same person... Nubis [http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php?title=User:Nubis&diff=prev&oldid=1558906 has gone on vaction] and [http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User:Nubis blocked himself for a month], and neither he or DCC have said anything more.<br />Even if they are the same person, I'd suggest that it's still misconduct, because in that case Nubis failed to combine the [[A/VD#User:DCC|DCC vandal data]] with [[A/VD#User:Nubis|his own]] as known alt account data should be <small>-- [[User:Boxy|<span style="color: Red">boxy</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Boxy|<span style="color: Red">talk</span>]] • [[The Rules|teh rulz]]</sup> 12:42 10 September 2009 (BST)</small>
| |
| :(Nubis is a girl.)
| |
| :The A/VD thing is not misconduct IMO. It's certainly a second layer of vandalism, but it's a situation that would be relevant to any user with a "secret" alt - sysop or not. {{User:Cyberbob240/Sig}} 12:56, 10 September 2009 (BST)
| |
| ::Regular users with secret alts don't have a duty to keep A/VD records accurate, or to enforce the escalation system <small>-- [[User:Boxy|<span style="color: Red">boxy</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Boxy|<span style="color: Red">talk</span>]] • [[The Rules|teh rulz]]</sup> 13:12 10 September 2009 (BST)</small>
| |
| :::That's pretty tenuous. {{User:Cyberbob240/Sig}} 13:19, 10 September 2009 (BST)
| |
| :::Didn't we demote Jed when it looked like he was sharing accounts? Sharing accounts is misconduct in itself, as it's a serious breach of the trust placed on a sysop. {{User:Linkthewindow/Sig}} 03:57, 11 September 2009 (BST)
| |
| | |
| DCC has been IP checked back in Feb 2008, indicating that they weren't sharing IPs at the time, or it would have been discovered then. That suggests a few possibilities.
| |
| *They are one, but were more careful about their IPs in the past,
| |
| *They were two separate posters, and one of them gained control of both accounts somehow,
| |
| *They have always been separate posters, but DCC has somehow managed to post from Nubis' IP lately,
| |
| <small>-- [[User:Boxy|<span style="color: Red">boxy</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Boxy|<span style="color: Red">talk</span>]] • [[The Rules|teh rulz]]</sup> 13:12 10 September 2009 (BST)</small>
| |
| :''*They have always been separate posters, but DCC has somehow managed to post from Nubis' IP lately,'' I like the way you think.--[[Image:Globetrotters_Icon.png|15px]] '''[[User:DCC/Suggestions|#99]]''' <sup>''[[User:DCC|DCC]] ''</sup> 19:36, 10 September 2009 (BST)
| |
| | |
| Do we dare put Nubis up for [http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=block&page=User:Nubis ban] [http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php?title=User_talk:Nubis&diff=prev&oldid=1559009 aversion] aswell? ;) In seriousness, I also tend to agree with the theory that they are the same person behind two accounts- though in practice, they often exhibited plenty of behaviour that suggests that they were different users... Things like [[UDWiki:Administration/Protections#The_Dead_2.0|PT requests]] and such that could easily have been streamlined via Nubis (and aren't unlike his edits anyway), and what would Nubis' reasoning be for lying about this alt fiasco anyway? He would be in more hot water if they were actually two separate users... I just don't understand fair Nubis... --{{User:DanceDanceRevolution/sigcode|Chartreuse}}-- 13:43, 10 September 2009 (BST)
| |
| :Actually, scrap that... After reading the talk page again, I'm fairly convinced that they were two separate users until the 'real' Nubis walked away and DCC received control of both accounts, after the "sysop trust" event... Basically, I'm going with DCC's story, it seems plausible, as per Boxy's 2008 checkuser evidence and the fact that Nubis' behaviour changed readily around the midmonths of 2008 onwards. It explains why they are technically the same person now, whilst it explains Boxy's checkuser evidence, and it explains DCC's own explaination, as well as other user's accounts of Nubis' changing behaviour over the past year. --{{User:DanceDanceRevolution/sigcode|Chartreuse}}-- 15:05, 10 September 2009 (BST)
| |
| ::Thank me later--{{User:Sexylegsread/sig}} 16:01, 10 September 2009 (BST)
| |
| | |
| I haven't got time to deal with this at the moment, and given the confusion over who has control of the account, I am temporarily demoting Nubis until we work out what is going on, and if the account is now secure. Nubis will be reinstated as soon as we can be sure of what went on, and that he has exclusive control of the account <small>-- [[User:Boxy|<span style="color: Red">boxy</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Boxy|<span style="color: Red">talk</span>]] • [[The Rules|teh rulz]]</sup> 21:48 10 September 2009 (BST)</small>
| |
| | |
| ====Jinkies====
| |
| Looks like you have a mystery on your hands, gang. I'll gather a few things of note and see if that helps. Let's assume that they are two different people and somehow DCC got a hold of Nubis's password, and work from there.
| |
| | |
| DCC [http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php?title=User_talk:Nubis&diff=prev&oldid=1559009 wiped Nubis's talk page], and has claimed to be Nubis since Grim's [[UDWiki:Open Discussion/System Operators, which ones do you trust]], which was back in May of 2008. This means that DCC has been in charge of Nubis's account for quite some time. A [http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&limit=500&target=DCC check of DCC's contributions] show a sudden absence around the middle of May of 2008, and doesn't return until September. [http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&offset=20080517202528&limit=500&target=Nubis Nubis's contributions] on the other hand, is very inactive before the same time in May, and suddenly becomes very active. So much so, that it explains why DCC has no contributions during that time period. DCC is far too busy working on Nubis's account that s/he doesn't have time to post under DCC.
| |
| | |
| This explains the noted change in Nubis's demeanor and posting habits. You can see the similarity with [http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&offset=20090613222454&limit=50&target=DCC DCC's flurry of edits on developing suggestions here], and repeated on Nubis's account [http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&offset=20081009015449&limit=500&target=Nubis here]. You can also see that Nubis was [http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&offset=20081104010725&limit=500&target=Nubis very active in October of 2008], while [http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&limit=500&target=DCC DCC stopped posting after the Grim Misconduct case became sysop only] and didn't post again until November 12th. Again, this seems to be due to the fact that Nubis was very involved with the wiki during the month of October. Something else of interest is that Nubis [http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php?title=User:Bulldog_C6/Sig&diff=prev&oldid=1361045 refers to DCC as being female] on January 12, 2009. Above, Cyberbob mentions that Nubis is female.
| |
| | |
| Assuming that DCC picked up Nubis's account at the start of the flurry of activity (May 16th, 2008), that would mean the following sysop actions were made by a non-sysop on a sysop account:
| |
| *All of the [http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=move&user=Nubis&page=&limit=500&offset=50 move actions] since May of 2008.
| |
| *All of the [http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=block&user=Nubis&page= block actions] since May of 2008.
| |
| *All of the [http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=protect&user=Nubis&page=&limit=500&offset=0 protect actions] since May of 2008.
| |
| *All of the [http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php?title=Special:Log&type=delete&user=Nubis&page=&limit=500&offset=0 deletion actions] since May of 2008.
| |
| *[http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php?title=UDWiki:Administration/Policy_Discussion/Sysop_Promotion_Guidelines_Overhaul_0.2&diff=prev&oldid=1156011 Archived] the [[UDWiki:Administration/Policy Discussion/Sysop Promotion Guidelines Overhaul 0.2]] policy on May 24th, 2008.
| |
| *[http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php?title=Suggestion:20080505_Nail_Guns_and_Nail_Gun_Clips&diff=prev&oldid=1158359 Ended voting] on [[Suggestion:20080505 Nail Guns and Nail Gun Clips]] on May 25th, 2008.
| |
| *Tons of rulings and administration of [[A/VB]] and [[A/M]] cases, starting [http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&offset=20080817210808&limit=500&target=Nubis here]. I'd list them all, but that would take a long time. A simple browse through Nubis's contributions from then on should show how many times Nubis has ruled on [[A/VB]] and [[A/M]] cases. I'll only list the [[A/VB]] cases that involve DCC.
| |
| *Nubis [http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php?title=UDWiki:Administration/Vandal_Banning/Archive/2008_10&diff=prev&oldid=1289899 effectively ruled on DCC's A/VB case] on October 9th, 2008. You can see how the [[UDWiki:Administration/Vandal_Banning/Archive/2008_10#User:DCC|case ended]].
| |
| *Nubis [http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php?title=UDWiki:Administration/Vandal_Data&diff=prev&oldid=1329118 reduced DCC's vandal escalation by two steps], despite there being [http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&limit=250&target=DCC far less than 500 edits] since May 11 of 2008, when DCC's last vandal deescalation occurred.
| |
| | |
| Also, to add to the case that [http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php?title=User_talk:Nubis&diff=1559877&oldid=1559875 Anime pointed out on Nubis's talk page], you can see that there are two other cases where DCC was used as a sock on voting: The [[UDWiki:Administration/Policy_Discussion/Autoconfirmed_Group_Trial]] and [[UDWiki:Administration/Bureaucrat_Promotions/February_2009]].
| |
| | |
| Prior to May of 2008, Nubis is barely involved with the wiki, but after May is suddenly very involved. It is reasonable to assume that Nubis stopped caring about the wiki, and gave the account away. Otherwise, there would likely be a number of password attempts on the Nubis account. At the very least, judging from [http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&offset=20080517202528&limit=500&target=Nubis Nubis's contributions in 2006 to May of 2008], Nubis had a habit of coming to the wiki every six to eight months. In my opinion, if Nubis was unaware of DCC's attempt to take over the account, then it is likely it would have come up before now, and not over a year later. However, if you give Nubis the benefit of the doubt, then I imagine that all of the above information would be enough to permaban DCC and his alts (if any). --{{User:Akule/sig}} 22:40, 10 September 2009 (BST)
| |
| | |
| :Awwww, but what about all the good things that Hitler did? --[[Image:Globetrotters_Icon.png|15px]] '''[[User:DCC/Suggestions|#99]]''' <sup>''[[User:DCC|DCC]] ''</sup> 02:39, 11 September 2009 (BST)
| |
| :Nice post, Akule. At the moment, there are one of two possibilities for this - Nubis and DCC are collaborating to stir up as much shit as possible (then demote, as it's very inappropriate conduct for a sysop,) or Nubis gave his account to DCC (demote, as the account's security has been compromised, and account sharing shouldn't be tolerated.) I just don't see an "account hacking" as too likely - ether Nubis has been careless with his password, or DCC has the skillz required to hack the wiki. Neither seem too likely. {{User:Linkthewindow/Sig}} 03:54, 11 September 2009 (BST)
| |
| | |
| ===[[User:Nubis|Nubis (2)]]===
| |
| | |
| Because one a/m case is never enough. And before we all cry personal harassment which seems to be the latest thing, since [[UDWiki:Administration/Misconduct/Archive/Nubis/2009#16_March|march]] my view on sysops banning themselves on a/m cases hasn't changed. It is absolutely pathetic and should not be tolerated. Nubis clearly shows he has 0 respect for the rest of the admin team, and everybody else for that matter. Anyway vote not misconduct away however i wanted to draw attention to the fact that this is fast becoming a bit of a nubis trademark and demonstrates he hasn't learned his lesson whatsoever and is just trying to shut y'all up as quickly as possible.--{{User:J3D/ciggy}} 04:29, 5 September 2009 (BST)
| |
| :Oh heres a link to the [http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=block&user=&page= block log] if you need it.--{{User:J3D/ciggy}} 04:33, 5 September 2009 (BST)
| |
| :Thank you.--{{User:Nubis/sig}} 06:29, 6 September 2009 (BST)
| |
| | |
| '''Not misconduct''' - taking a penalty for misconduct that is as harsh as anyone suggested is the way to put a case behind you, even if you disagree with the ruling. Should be more of it <small>-- [[User:Boxy|<span style="color: Red">boxy</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Boxy|<span style="color: Red">talk</span>]] • [[The Rules|teh rulz]]</sup> 04:38 5 September 2009 (BST)</small>
| |
| :I don't like it because it preemptively puts a stop to the discussion. And yes, you can say "but anyone who wanted a harsher penalty could say so" and they could, but the discussion just kinda stops straight away and the case is ruled on and archived, so they usually don't.--{{User:J3D/ciggy}} 04:40, 5 September 2009 (BST)
| |
| | |
| '''Not Misconduct''' - And the catalyst for your A/VB case. {{User:Cyberbob240/Sig}} 04:44, 5 September 2009 (BST)
| |
| | |
| '''Not Misconduct''' - I'm still not sure whether I should be considering Nubis' self-ban a good thing or a bad thing for the case's cause at the time, but this is petty and it's been shown through multiple precedence that its within the law of the wiki. --{{User:DanceDanceRevolution/sigcode|Chartreuse}}-- 05:03, 5 September 2009 (BST)
| |
| | |
| '''Not Misconduct''' - but I don't like it much either, because Nubis '''did''' stop the discussion and he '''didn't''' admit that he was wrong. I forsee this happening again.--{{User:The General/sig}} 10:10, 6 September 2009 (BST)
| |
| :Exactly. Which is why I have to ask, if you don't like it much... if it did stop discussion and she didn't admot she was wrong... and if you foresee it happening again... then why isn't it misconduct? The action ''did'' use a sysop only power, after all. And you've agreed that nubis sidestepped the normal Misconduct procedure by using said power -- a procedure which usually involves a decision of Mis or NotMis ... followed, if it's deemed Misconduct, by a discussion of the "punishment". For all we know, after that discussion, the penalty agreed upon could have been more than a 24h ban. But unilaterally bypassed that procedure... What if, hypothetically speaking, the consensus was for demotion? Why should nubis have been allowed to get away with a 24h ban?
| |
| :Quite simply, sysops should NOT be allowed to pick their penalty and to vandal ban themselves... If you think about it, it's a little like them voting on their own Misconduct case... --[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 10:23, 6 September 2009 (BST)
| |
| ::He wasn't getting away with anything... a 24hr ban was never going to be handed out for that deletion, which was a picture of a naked woman, legs akimbo, with a coke bottle inserted, with the ''bare minimum'' blacked out by one of the 2stool crew. Nubis didn't file the required paperwork, but it was always going to be nuked within minutes.<br />And even in cases where a sysop may think to avoid a harsher penalty in this way, it simply wouldn't work... the only reason that no-one pursued it was that they agreed that 24hrs was more than enough for such minor misconduct <small>-- [[User:Boxy|<span style="color: Red">boxy</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Boxy|<span style="color: Red">talk</span>]] • [[The Rules|teh rulz]]</sup> 11:25 6 September 2009 (BST)</small>
| |
| ::I didn't VB the uploader and yet I still get in trouble? That's quite fair of you, Wan. --{{User:Nubis/sig}} 19:21, 6 September 2009 (BST)
| |
| ::The reason this isn't misconduct is because no one was going to hand out anything more than a 24hr ban for that case. I don't like it because I believe he hasn't accepted that he did anything wrong, but that doesn't make it misconduct. However, I would like it noted that if he does do it again I will definitely be pushing for a harsher punishment.--{{User:The General/sig}} 19:56, 6 September 2009 (BST)
| |
| :::Oh it is but in part because the last case isn't. That's the whole point. If he wants to ban himself for whatever reason that's up to him but when it's being used to try and change the way a case is going on the wiki, that's different. That's intentionally using the ability to ban oneself to alter your treatment and no different than if he did it on A/VB or A/A to provide a fait accompli case result. All of it's irrelevant because it's such a stupid case but, future reference, it's misconduct and, if I remember correctly, he's argued as much himself in the past when certain other sysops tried to do this. --<small>[[User:Karek#K|Karek]]<sup><font face="Monotype Corsiva">[[User:Karek/ProjDev/OmegaMap|maps?!]]</font></sup></small> 19:14, 8 September 2009 (BST)
| |
| ::::You've seriously lost it. There was no attempt to "change the way the case was going". If it had been I would have thrown up my walls of text to shut down the conversation a la Grim. I'm very good at throwing a tantrum as we've seen. It was simply me realizing that no one was going to listen to anything I had to say, any of my evidence, and they were all jumping on the porn bandwagon yet somehow failing to do anything about it themselves in the first place. And if I argued (which I don't recall) against this type of action it was probably when the punishment that was going to be handed out would have been much worse... Which I don't think anyone is saying is the case here. --{{User:Nubis/sig}} 00:05, 9 September 2009 (BST)
| |
| :::::No Nubis. The thing your missing here is that ''it's irrelevant if that was actually your motivation it's still not something you do''. Even if you're not ''trying'' to alter the case in doing so you're altering the case. A sysop ''can not'' choose their own punishment for misconduct, doing so is {{blink|''always''}} misconduct. This is equivalent to banning yourself in a VB case or deleting a content/group page you made even though there are keep votes on it from people using it. --<small>[[User:Karek#K|Karek]]<sup><font face="Monotype Corsiva">[[User:Karek/ProjDev/OmegaMap|maps?!]]</font></sup></small> 21:48, 9 September 2009 (BST)
| |
| ::::::'''''Always''''' misconduct, eh? *looks at case* Welp, guess not. Might be an idea to shush up before you make yourself look even sillier. {{User:Cyberbob240/Sig}} 00:17, 10 September 2009 (BST)
| |
| ::::In-case you're missing it; the issue is that it was regarded as misconduct ''because'' he banned himself, not just that he banned himself. If the case was a borderline porn image that was deleted it's scheduled as vandalism, regardless of if he decides to escalate or soft warn. The conclusion of the last case basically validates the point being made here. --<small>[[User:Karek#K|Karek]]<sup><font face="Monotype Corsiva">[[User:Karek/ProjDev/OmegaMap|maps?!]]</font></sup></small> 19:17, 8 September 2009 (BST)
| |
| :::::I DIDN'T DELETE IT AS PORN! I'VE NEVER SAID IT WAS PORN! HOW MANY TIMES DO I HAVE TO SAY THIS? IT WASN'T DELETED AS PORN.I DIDN'T DELETE IT AS PORN! I'VE NEVER SAID IT WAS PORN! HOW MANY TIMES DO I HAVE TO SAY THIS? IT WASN'T DELETED AS PORN.I DIDN'T DELETE IT AS PORN! I'VE NEVER SAID IT WAS PORN! HOW MANY TIMES DO I HAVE TO SAY THIS? IT WASN'T DELETED AS PORN.I DIDN'T DELETE IT AS PORN! I'VE NEVER SAID IT WAS PORN! HOW MANY TIMES DO I HAVE TO SAY THIS? IT WASN'T DELETED AS PORN.I DIDN'T DELETE IT AS PORN! I'VE NEVER SAID IT WAS PORN! HOW MANY TIMES DO I HAVE TO SAY THIS? IT WASN'T DELETED AS PORN.I DIDN'T DELETE IT AS PORN! I'VE NEVER SAID IT WAS PORN! HOW MANY TIMES DO I HAVE TO SAY THIS? IT WASN'T DELETED AS PORN.I DIDN'T DELETE IT AS PORN! I'VE NEVER SAID IT WAS PORN! HOW MANY TIMES DO I HAVE TO SAY THIS? IT WASN'T DELETED AS PORN. '''IT WAS FROM A PAGE THAT CLEARLY REQUESTED THAT THEIR IMAGES NOT BE USED AND THERE FOR COPYRIGHT VIOLATION AND YOU WOULD THINK THAT THE ONES SAYING IT WAS PORN ARE THE SYSOPS THAT SHOULD BE MISCONDUCTED FOR LETTING IT GET POSTED IN THE FIRST PLACE AND DOING NOTHING ABOUT IT!'''--{{User:Nubis/sig}} 00:04, 9 September 2009 (BST)
| |
| :::::::I never said you did. Try again without the "ZOMG I'M BEING PERSECUTED". My comment was regarding Boxy's in which ''he'' said it and even then all I said was 'If that was the case'. Deleting porn is valid, scheduled or not, always has been and wouldn't change the case situation because it's still an auto-delete on sight(which is what was said when the scheduled as originally up for voting anyway).--<small>[[User:Karek#K|Karek]]<sup><font face="Monotype Corsiva">[[User:Karek/ProjDev/OmegaMap|maps?!]]</font></sup></small> 21:48, 9 September 2009 (BST)
| |
| ::::::<nowiki>*copies and pastes "THAT'S WHY YOU GOT MISCONDUCTED" fifty times*</nowiki> --{{User:DanceDanceRevolution/sigcode|Chartreuse}}-- 02:58, 9 September 2009 (BST)
| |
| :::::::It's funny, there should be a disclaimer for this sort of crap on [[A/PM]]. "Warning! A high tolerance for drama is required for any position in the administrative structure. Users who are promoted but then get tired of said drama are advised to mosey over to [[A/DM]] and get a life!" --'''[[User:BobBoberton|<span style="color: #FF4500">Bob Boberton</span>]] <sup>[[The_Fortress|<span style="color: #6B8E23">TF</span>]] / [[The_Fortress/Dark_Watch|<span style="color: #778899 ">DW</span>]]</sup>''' [[Image:Littlemudkipsig.gif]] 03:01, 9 September 2009 (BST)
| |
| :::::::<nowiki>*</nowiki>copies and pastes "DON'T BE SUCH A FUCKING RULES LAWYER ABOUT WHETHER OR NOT PEOPLE FROM THE SITE SPECIFICALLY ASKED UDWIKI TO TAKE THE IMAGE DOWN WHEN THEY HAVE SUCH AN UNEQUIVOCAL MESSAGE ON THEIR PAGE" fifty times* {{User:Cyberbob240/Sig}} 03:01, 9 September 2009 (BST)
| |
| ::::::::You really do have a pole up your arse today, don't you? --{{User:DanceDanceRevolution/sigcode|Chartreuse}}-- 03:09, 9 September 2009 (BST)
| |
| :::::::::The pole is you. {{User:Cyberbob240/Sig}} 03:16, 9 September 2009 (BST)
| |
| ::::::::::I like that. --{{User:DanceDanceRevolution/sigcode|Chartreuse}}-- 03:36, 9 September 2009 (BST)
| |
| | |
| ===[[User:Nubis]]===
| |
| For deleting an image without going through the correct channels. Again.
| |
| | |
| Nubis deleted image [[Image:2cola100.jpeg]] citing Moviefap.com as the owner of the work in the [http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=delete&user=Nubis&page=Image%3A2cola100.jpeg log], as a copyright violation. Copyright violations are '''not''' scheduled deletion material unless '''especially''' asked by the owner of the copyright.
| |
| | |
| Furthermore, after seeing the image (from personal request to the uploader) the image would most certainly have passed as porn, and deletable within the moment by a sysop who was around at the time (evidently myself and cyberbob, just by [[Special:Recentchanges|clicking one link]]). Its pornographic nature is quite obviously the only reason Nubis bothered to delete it at all (let alone on sight), though it appears he has looked for another reason to do so, now the Porn scheduled is no longer valid..
| |
| | |
| We [[UDWiki:Administration/Deletions/Scheduling/Archive#Removal_of_the_porn_scheduled_deletion|got rid]] of the [[UDWiki:Administration/Deletions/Scheduling/Archive#Pornography|porn clause]] for this exact reason- to make sure sysops no longer had [[UDWiki:Administration/Misconduct/Archive/Nubis/2009#26_March|unilateral]] [[UDWiki:Administration/Misconduct/Archive/Suicidalangel/2009|judgement]] over what stays and goes, and the true thing that should have happened was Nubis should have submitted it to A/VB under a case against Nallan, the uploader, Nallan would have been warned (something we would all whole-heartedly support once seeing this image) and the image deleted as vandalism- the only legitimate deletable offence it currently stands under, Nubis knew this and ignored it.
| |
| | |
| Nubis has flimsily defended his arguments on his talk page where he [http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php?title=User_talk:Nubis&diff=1554271&oldid=1554048 attempted to twist the words of the scheduled copyright clause] despite the [[UDWiki:Administration/Deletions/Scheduling/Archive#Copyrighted_images_requested_to_be_deleted_by_the_copyright_holder|header of said citation]] directly contradicting his poor interpretation of the [[UDWiki:Administration/Guidelines#Scheduled_Deletions|guideline]] (which also follows the "header" interpretation of the scheduled submission, and always had). He continued to cite [http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php?title=User_talk%3ANubis&diff=1554708&oldid=1554702 copyright lingo] from the page of the holder of said image, though told that the image would still '''have''' to have been submitted through A/SD (as per the guidelines), he [http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php?title=User_talk:Nubis&diff=1554718&oldid=1554713 blanked the entire conversation] as despite the entire shitstorm that's been created on his talk page, there is still no proving that what he did was within the sanctions of UDWiki's guidelines.
| |
| | |
| He's had problems like this before, which we should all recall, for example submitting [http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php?title=UDWiki:Administration/Deletions&diff=1513125&oldid=1513081 multiple crit 1's] to the [[A/D]] system instead of the [[A/SD]] system by accident, and then responding to subsequent [http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php?title=UDWiki:Administration/Deletions&diff=1513507&oldid=1513492 legitimate] '''keep''' votes by disregarding them based on the ''time'' they were submitted and [http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=delete&user=Nubis&page= deleting them anyway] (for the record: his argument of "If I had gotten there before the keep votes they would have been eligible for speedy deletion and I would have done it then instead" is a retarded argument considering if Akule (or any "keep" voters) had the same time-travel abilities they could have just voted before A/D's "3 speedy-delete" threshold to legitimise said A/D voting) to which he refused to admit he had done any wrongdoing and that he had submitted it to A/SD the whole time. The reason I am adding this onto the case is because this is '''not''' an isolated incident- Nubis is the only sysop who has issues with a trigger-happy deletion finger. I submit [[A/U#Deletions_reversal]] to be read by ruling sysops, as [http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php?title=User_talk:Nubis&oldid=1554708 this].
| |
| | |
| Don't misinterpret my intentions. I don't give a shit about the image and I sure as hell think Nallan's uploading of it was vandalism ([[UDWiki:Administration/Vandal_Banning/Archive/2009_09#User:Nallan|1]]). The image should have been deleted and I don't want it back in any form but Nubis has just got to learn to just use the goddamned red tape and follow the proper procedure. ''We'' follow it not because we want to, or because we like it, but because it's there and it's our job to adhere to the rules. Nubis has been doing this too often without any repercussions other than [http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php?title=UDWiki%3AAdministration%2FUndeletions&diff=1533884&oldid=1533880 half-arsed warnings] and "It's not big enough to be an A/M case". I'm sick of his werewolf-like "come out once every full moon and fuck something up, ignorantly defend my actions and leave" attitude. The punishment can be a [http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php?title=UDWiki:Administration/Undeletions&diff=1533874&oldid=1533870 teaching lesson on the difference between A/D and A/SD] for all I care, I just want it communally recognised that this shit is not on and that it is misonductable- especially over the time period that he's been doing it. --{{User:DanceDanceRevolution/sigcode|Chartreuse}}-- 15:49, 4 September 2009 (BST)
| |
| | |
| '''Misconduct''' for about the 3rd time. I'm recommending a 24 hour ban because warnings don't seem to be having any effect at all. Like DDR, I don't dislike Nubis, I just hate his attitude and the fact he refuses point-blank, time and again not to follow rules about deletion. You've done it with [[UDWiki:Administration/Misconduct/Archive/Nubis/2008#2008.2C_November_7|templates]], [[UDWiki:Administration/Misconduct/Archive/Nubis/2008#2008.2C_October_27|regular pages]] (this one just narrowly ruled NM) and now with images (although I'm sure there was something about images ages back, but I can't find it). I've said it several times now, and in fact I'm just going to quote myself:
| |
| {{quote|Krazy Monkey|The red tape is there for a reason. If you want to cut it permanently, we have established processes for that. Either get it scheduled, take it to policy discussion or just follow the rules.}}
| |
| Easy as that. And don't try and stretch the wording of a policy beyond what is actually there. It just doesn't work. -- {{User:Krazy_Monkey/sig}} 16:16, 4 September 2009 (BST)
| |
| :as well as a certain removal of ones own misconduct case [[UDWiki:Administration/Misconduct/Archive/Nubis/2009#June_4|here]]--{{User:Sexylegsread/sig}} 16:28, 4 September 2009 (BST)
| |
| | |
| '''Misconduct''' - I disagree with pretty much everything DDR has used to try and shore this case up, but I do agree that rules are rules and that Nubis did the right thing for the wrong reason. As far as punishment goes, a 24-hour ban is totally ridiculous. An official warning is all that is needed here - at the absolute most. Hagnat was far worse than Nubis when it came to ignoring red tape and he never got anything even close to a day. {{User:Cyberbob240/Sig}} 16:35, 4 September 2009 (BST)
| |
| : i knew someone was talking about me.... --[[User:Hagnat|People's Commissar Hagnat]] <sup>[[User_talk:Hagnat|[talk]]] [[wcdz|[wcdz]]]</sup> 03:32, 5 September 2009 (BST)
| |
| ::Well, just don't pretend like it isn't true. You were immensely proud of your red-tape-rejecting ways IIRC. {{User:Cyberbob240/Sig}} 03:34, 5 September 2009 (BST)
| |
| :::Still am... but i never avoided the red-tape to attend to my personal agenda... --[[User:Hagnat|People's Commissar Hagnat]] <sup>[[User_talk:Hagnat|[talk]]] [[wcdz|[wcdz]]]</sup> 03:44, 5 September 2009 (BST)
| |
| ::::I don't think Nubis has either. I really wish people would stop being so paranoid. {{User:Cyberbob240/Sig}} 03:45, 5 September 2009 (BST)
| |
| | |
| 1. I see, so you are ignoring all of the copyrights on the webpage, the terms of Service, this wikis own terms of usage, and the other places I quoted where that site said they didn't want their images used? Convenient. You also have as much proof that they had express written permission to use those images as I have that they didn't want those images used... Oh, no, wait. The whole site has MANY examples of them saying they didn't want the images used. But, somehow what is actually written on the website regarding their property in the first place is somehow less important than your friends' "rights".
| |
| | |
| 2. The Speedy Delete/Keep vote - If you notice Link said: ''Speedy Delete - I'll delete them myself but I've got to go now. Linkthewindow Talk 22:54, 20 July 2009 (BST) '' well before the keep votes were added and after 3 Speedy Deletes were lodged, but no please throw them in here because you couldn't be arsed to do anything at that time. Not to mention the policy says if they get 3 speedy deletes they are deleted. Hence, the "speedy" part.
| |
| | |
| 3. Since when did a scheduled deletion have to go through A/SD? That's the whole point of scheduling something.
| |
| | |
| 4. If I go ahead and ban myself for 24 hours are you going to bitch about that, too?
| |
| | |
| 5. Might as well go for the trifecta here: ''Not Misconduct''--{{User:Nubis/sig}} 18:34, 4 September 2009 (BST)
| |
| :Wait Nubis is a copyright warrior? FLIP FLOP!--{{User:AnimeSucks/Sig}} 20:01, 4 September 2009 (BST)
| |
| ::??? I've never not been a copyright warrior. Perhaps you are confusing that with my "un-civility" stance?--{{User:Nubis/sig}} 19:23, 6 September 2009 (BST)
| |
| :Since when can you rule on you're own case, please unbold that part. --[[Image:Umbrella-White.png|14px]][[User:MisterGame|<span style= "color: maroon; background-color: white">'''''Thadeous Oakley''''']][[Image:Umbrella-White.png|14px]]</span> 21:12, 4 September 2009 (BST)
| |
| :I've addressed every single one of those points in the case, so I'll be quick. 1. I cited your reasoning but regardless of its validity it's not enough to be classed as a scheduled. 2. Again: see above for "time travel" argument. 3. It's not a scheduled. As for 4 and 5, if you wish. I don't think a ban is necessary, I just want it to be known that this stuff ''is'' misconductable and the rules are there to be followed (and that we know it). --{{User:DanceDanceRevolution/sigcode|Chartreuse}}-- 01:44, 5 September 2009 (BST)
| |
| :What a load of word twisting shit. Also, please don't bold a ruling you make on your own case, Newbis. Against the rules or not (I don't know and don't care) it is poor form. Are you hoping someone miscounts or something? Or hoping another sysop doesn't read it properly and sees that there is a Not Misconduct ruling and reconsiders their own thoughts? Regardless, it influences the vote and you are not allowed to do that.--{{User:Sexylegsread/sig}} 03:14, 5 September 2009 (BST)
| |
| :Changed the ruling to italics for now. --{{User:DanceDanceRevolution/sigcode|Chartreuse}}-- 03:24, 5 September 2009 (BST)
| |
| | |
| Nubis has [http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php?title=Special:Log&page=User:Nubis banned himself] for 24hrs, so this case is pretty much closed, and will be recorded as '''Misconduct'''. It's minor, given that everyone seems to agree that the image should have gone regardless. Just take it to [[A/SD]] or [[A/VB]] next time <small>-- [[User:Boxy|<span style="color: Red">boxy</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Boxy|<span style="color: Red">talk</span>]] • [[The Rules|teh rulz]]</sup> 03:26 5 September 2009 (BST)</small>
| |
