|
|
| 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. |
| 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:DanceDanceRevolution]]=== | | ==Concluded Misconduct Cases== |
| | | Check the [[UDWiki:Administration/Misconduct/Archive|Archive]] for concluded Misconduct cases. |
| [http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php?title=UDWiki%3AAdministration%2FVandal_Banning%2FArchive%2F2010_03&diff=1674127&oldid=1674121 Voted not vandalism] in a case of racism. A sysop (Misanthropy) called a user a "dirty mexican" knowing full well that the user (Woot) lives in Central America. In a previous case against Woot, who used the word "nigger", the sysop DDR voted Vandalism. In the case against Misanthropy the sysop DDR voted not vandalism. This is a clear case of misconduct because instead of holding the precedent and making all racism across the board illegal he has picked and chosen what is deemed offensive to people. --[[User:Saromu|Sonny Corleone]] <sup>[[DORIS]] [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4pXfHLUlZf4 I jizzed in my pants] [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=91a8pHj7V9k pr0n]</sup> 18:13, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
| |
| | |
| <s>'''Not misconduct''' - Oh look. He's cute when he's on a crusade. {{User:Misanthropy/Sig}} 22:15, 12 March 2010 (UTC)</s>
| |
| :Oh look,... you're cute in DDR's pocket,.... -{{User:Poodle_of_doom/signiture}} 22:43, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
| |
| :: He is well within his right to vote not misconduct on this. --{{User:Michaleson/sig}} 22:54, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
| |
| :::Yeah, considering if he voted misconduct he'd then be voting himself for vandalism. --[[User:Saromu|Sonny Corleone]] <sup>[[DORIS]] [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4pXfHLUlZf4 I jizzed in my pants] [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=91a8pHj7V9k pr0n]</sup> 23:02, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
| |
| ::::And if you waited more than two rulings then you might have even had the case ruled vandalism. But you waited for the first two Not Vandalism votes, threatened us with A/M and when we didn't budge, just threw this here anyway. Nice patience. --{{User:DanceDanceRevolution/sig3}} 23:09, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
| |
| ::::::As it has been shown many times in the past, there is no "grace period" before making an A/M case. Nice try trying to say there is. Are you going to suggest that instead of making a case he should post on your talk page first? That's normally what the shitty Ops try to tell people to "avoid" some cases.--[[Image:Globetrotters_Icon.png|15px]] '''[[User:DCC/Suggestions|#99]]''' <sup>''[[User:DCC|DCC]] ''</sup> 03:40, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
| |
| :::::::No, in fact not a single thing you said related to what I meant in the slightest- nice work. I meant if Sonny actually gave a shit about how the ''case'' turned out (as opposed to what he actually cares about- making drama) he would have waited for the case to be closed with all active sysops voting, there was still a large chance it would be overturned. --{{User:DanceDanceRevolution/sig3}} 07:40, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
| |
| ::::::::So I'm supposed to wait for this to be drawn out, forgotten about, no longer cared about, that way its ruled against me? No thanks. I'd rather do it when its fresh in everybody's mind and they have no other distracting cases to worry about. But thanks for trying. --[[User:Saromu|Sonny Corleone]] <sup>[[DORIS]] [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4pXfHLUlZf4 I jizzed in my pants] [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=91a8pHj7V9k pr0n]</sup> 18:06, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
| |
| ::::::::::They want you to wait so that they can come along and say "well, if it was such a big violation why did you wait X days to post it? Clearly you are just looking to harass Ops." It's a common tactic.--[[Image:Globetrotters_Icon.png|15px]] '''[[User:DCC/Suggestions|#99]]''' <sup>''[[User:DCC|DCC]] ''</sup> 19:15, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
| |
| :::::::::::Of course it is, you used it. -- {{User:Iscariot/Signature}} 20:26, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
| |
| :::::::::I'm not sure what minuscule attention span you have but misconduct cases still carry attention and importance even from heavily archived material. Consider your last butthurt rant on A/M on Boxy about the Historical Groups. It was about a month or so old now, no? It passed with flying colours, no? --{{User:DanceDanceRevolution/sig3}} 20:20, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
| |
| :::::All I'm saying Michal is that since it's concerning him as directly as this does,... perhaps his vote is bias, and not in the a-typical sort of way that everyone elses would be. -{{User:Poodle_of_doom/signiture}} 00:47, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
| |
| ::::::This is why I never offer justification, you guys have so much fun inventing your own and I'd hate to take it away from you all. {{User:Misanthropy/Sig}} 00:59, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
| |
| :::::::That would be like me being judge on my own murder case... just saying... You could be punished or not punished. Hard choice huh? You have the right to vote the way you did, but I don't think it was really much of a vote. Therefore, being a given, you shouldn't be allowed to, especially if it could induce some sort of a tie..... -{{User:Poodle_of_doom/signiture}} 02:30, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
| |
| :::::: Jesus christ, Sonny, is woot actually offended by this? --[[User:Karloth_vois|Karloth Vois]] <sup>[[¯\(°_o)/¯]]</sup> 19:30, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
| |
| :::::::Yes he is. There's only so much abuse a person can take. But I guess since he can be a troll at times he doesn't deserve to be treated like a human. At least that's the opinion of everyone here. --[[User:Saromu|Sonny Corleone]] <sup>[[DORIS]] [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4pXfHLUlZf4 I jizzed in my pants] [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=91a8pHj7V9k pr0n]</sup> 04:02, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
| |
| ::::::::Not to mention, the comments can offend someone else even if they aren't the ones they were directed at. You need people to stand up and say this is offensive because sometimes the victim is too afraid. It's everyone's responsibility to stand up to bullies.--[[Image:Globetrotters_Icon.png|15px]] '''[[User:DCC/Suggestions|#99]]''' <sup>''[[User:DCC|DCC]] ''</sup> 19:19, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
| |
| :::::::::Irony really is just a five letter word to you, isn't it? -- {{User:Iscariot/Signature}} 20:26, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
| |
| ::::::::::Irony really is just a five letter word to you, Iscariot, isn't it? --[[User:Karloth_vois|Karloth Vois]] <sup>[[¯\(°_o)/¯]]</sup> 01:52, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
| |
| | |
| '''Not Misconduct''' - All sysops are free to have their own opinions on cases. If you feel it was biased, ask for a second opinion. -- {{User:Krazy_Monkey/sig}} 22:01, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
| |
| :Second opinion --[[User:Saromu|Sonny Corleone]] <sup>[[DORIS]] [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4pXfHLUlZf4 I jizzed in my pants] [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=91a8pHj7V9k pr0n]</sup> 01:49, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
| |
| :: It's '''Lupus''' --[[User:Karloth_vois|Karloth Vois]] <sup>[[¯\(°_o)/¯]]</sup> 01:52, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
| |
| :::It's never Lupus. --[[User:Saromu|Sonny Corleone]] <sup>[[DORIS]] [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4pXfHLUlZf4 I jizzed in my pants] [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=91a8pHj7V9k pr0n]</sup> 12:14, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
| |
| ::::[http://www.tv.com/house/you-dont-want-to-know/episode/1147763/summary.html Once] every four years it is. -- {{User:Iscariot/Signature}} 22:31, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
| |
| | |
| :lol raks a central amerifag? the things you learn..{{User:J3D/ciggy}} 04:56, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
| |
| '''Not Misconduct''' - although I don't entirely agree with the a/vb ruling <small>-- <span style="text-shadow: #bbb 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em">[[User:Boxy|<span style="color: Red">boxy</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Boxy|<span style="color: Red">talk</span>]] • [[The Rules|teh rulz]]</sup></span> 21:21 20 March 2010 (BST)</small>
| |
| | |
| ===[[User:Rosslessness]]===
| |
| | |
| [http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php?title=UDWiki%3AAdministration%2FVandal_Banning%2FArchive%2F2010_03&diff=1674137&oldid=1674133 Also voted not vandalism] in a case about racism. While in the previous case against Woot he voted vandalism, he voted not vandalism for his fellow sysop Misanthropy. It's obviously misconduct when a sysop discriminates against Hispanics saying it isn't offensive when they're insulted, though I think this has more to do with personal dislike for Woot and favoritism for fellow sysop than outright racism. However, instead of simply giving Misanthropy a warning like he deserved he was given not vandalism. --[[User:Saromu|Sonny Corleone]] <sup>[[DORIS]] [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4pXfHLUlZf4 I jizzed in my pants] [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=91a8pHj7V9k pr0n]</sup> 18:13, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
| |
| | |
| You do realize that this is pretty much hopeless right now? --[[Image:Umbrella-White.png|14px]][[User:MisterGame|<span style= "color: maroon; background-color: white">'''''Thadeous Oakley''''']][[Image:Umbrella-White.png|14px]]</span> 18:16, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
| |
| :Then I will go to Kevan. He doesn't stand for this kind of crap. --[[User:Saromu|Sonny Corleone]] <sup>[[DORIS]] [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4pXfHLUlZf4 I jizzed in my pants] [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=91a8pHj7V9k pr0n]</sup> 18:19, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
| |
| | |
| Two cases, so pretend this comment goes on both of them. Here we go, I'll spoil the ending for you.
| |
| | |
| Based on Bob's precedent, we are aware that sysops can vote not misconduct on their own cases. DDR and Ross both vote not misconduct. Mis shows up and votes not misconduct. Boxy stops in inside 24 hours and votes not misconduct based on the fact that sysops are under no obligation to follow precedent and presents three cases as evidence along with quoting the 'cover everything' line from the Sysop Guidelines. That's a definitive 4-0 not misconduct. That's the final score.
| |
| | |
| The only change to this could be The General showing up to vote not misconduct in the vain hope of hanging on to his status before we all kick him out on his arse soon in a re-evaluation.
| |
| | |
| It's a simple matter of maths, 9 sysops, of which two never (or claimed to never) want anything to do with drama pages. 7 possible votes, 4 of which vote not misconduct as I've predicted. End of misconduct cases.
| |
| | |
| Sonny goes to Kevan's talk page and whines. Kevan ignores the matter.
| |
| | |
| ''Fin.'' -- {{User:Iscariot/Signature}} 19:26, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
| |
| :Since this is turning into a massive clusterfuck, let me do Boxy's bit for him:
| |
| ::''"System operators are also given the authority to make decisions regarding actions for which there is no governing policy in place. For example, should a particular action for which there is no policy be disputed, system operators may exercise their best judgment to allow or deny it."''
| |
| :This wiki has no governing policy in place regarding racism and what is and what isn't racism. This has been escalated due to possible breaches of of TOU due to UK legislation (the most common one being spouted in the media at the moment is incitement of racial hatred). Given that there is no policy regarding racism in place on this wiki, nor any policy regarding interpretation of the TOU, sysops are empowered under policy to make decisions on a case by case basis based on their own judgement. The sysops ruling not vandalism/misconduct in these case were using their judgement, as they are required to. End of all cases. -- {{User:Iscariot/Signature}} 23:14, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
| |
| | |
| I wonder if Sonny has realized this is a lose/lose situation. If he manages to get them to go back and rule vandalism on Misanthropy then its pretty obvious they will turn around and vote vandalism on him for his homophobic references. He loses. If nothing happens with this, he loses. Even if Kevan does come down and say Misanthropy's comment was distasteful then he will turn around and comment on Sonny's being the same if not worse. --{{User:The Colonel/Sig}} 19:39, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
| |
| | |
| <s>'''Not misconduct''' - I look forward to my own inevitable case for ruling as such on these cases. {{User:Misanthropy/Sig}} 22:15, 12 March 2010 (UTC)</s>
| |
| | |
| So let me see. A user uses the "n" word and its ruled vandalism. In response a wiki user responds that he's a dirty mexican.
| |
| | |
| The thing I don't understand here is where exactly the racial slur is in Mis' comment. Woots ''apparently'' from Central America and has a filthy mouth. Explain to me how this is a comment designed to slur all Mexicans and you might have a case. --{{User:Rosslessness/Sig}} 23:41, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
| |
| :Check Woot's IP, its out of Costa Rica. Which for you Geography Majors, its in Central America. Google "Dirty Mexican" its a slur against Mexicans, and in this case its insulting all Hispanics. Calling a Korean a "Nip" or "Gook" is offensive despite it being more aimed at Chinese. "Dirt Mexican" is not unlike the previous "nigger" that Woot said. --[[User:Saromu|Sonny Corleone]] <sup>[[DORIS]] [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4pXfHLUlZf4 I jizzed in my pants] [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=91a8pHj7V9k pr0n]</sup> 03:19, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
| |
| ::I cant be bothered to check Ip's I'll take you're word for that. But I did google the mexican thing. Then I did the same, but with dirty french, canadian, indian, french, british, italian and a couple of others. And it appears that they're all insults. Thats interesting, because they all seem to be insulting, but about different people. If I called Woot a mexican, would that be racism? If I called him dirty, because of his potty mouth, would that be racism? --{{User:Rosslessness/Sig}} 11:59, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
| |
| :::Well Woot isn't Mexican so calling him Mexican because he lives in Central America, yes, that is insulting. Calling a black person a slave is insulting even if their relatives came from East Africa and not West. On the dirty because of his language subject, if he had said this then it would be different. Then again if he said anything different it would have a different meaning. That's why different words exist. If he didn't mean that he could have quickly edited it. He didn't. He fully meant to insult Woot because he lives in Costa Rica. --[[User:Saromu|Sonny Corleone]] <sup>[[DORIS]] [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4pXfHLUlZf4 I jizzed in my pants] [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=91a8pHj7V9k pr0n]</sup> 03:29, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
| |
| ::::Hahahaha. {{User:Misanthropy/Sig}} 03:31, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
| |
| :::::I'm sorry you find racism to be funny. --[[User:Saromu|Sonny Corleone]] <sup>[[DORIS]] [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4pXfHLUlZf4 I jizzed in my pants] [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=91a8pHj7V9k pr0n]</sup> 03:35, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
| |
| ::::::I'm just looking forward to that moment when you stretch your shitty logic so thin it snaps. {{User:Misanthropy/Sig}} 03:37, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
| |
| :::::::I'm glad that you can ignore how bad racism is just to be spiteful towards me. You must be proud of yourself. --[[User:Saromu|Sonny Corleone]] <sup>[[DORIS]] [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4pXfHLUlZf4 I jizzed in my pants] [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=91a8pHj7V9k pr0n]</sup> 03:41, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
| |
| ::::::::Your point is that calling woot a dirty mexican is racist because he's from latin america and therefore calling him mexican is racist. It'd logically follow, then, that calling, say, Ross, a European, a dirty scot, would be just as racist. Except OF COURSE IT FUCKING ISN'T hur dur. Find somewhere else to be stupid, I have cartoons to watch. {{User:Misanthropy/Sig}} 03:44, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
| |
| :::::::::So by that logic when Rakuen called you a "nigger" it wasn't offensive because you're not black. Glad to know. Want me to make another miscontribute case against you for unlawfully banning him or do you want to? --[[User:Saromu|Sonny Corleone]] <sup>[[DORIS]] [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4pXfHLUlZf4 I jizzed in my pants] [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=91a8pHj7V9k pr0n]</sup> 03:45, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
| |
| ::::::::::That's a term that exists ''only'' to be a racial slur. Mexican is a harmless word denoting people from Mexico. It's as racist as calling a Scouser a Brummie. Try again? {{User:Misanthropy/Sig}} 03:50, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
| |
| :::::::::::You called him a "Dirty Mexican". Different meaning. Try again? --[[User:Saromu|Sonny Corleone]] <sup>[[DORIS]] [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4pXfHLUlZf4 I jizzed in my pants] [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=91a8pHj7V9k pr0n]</sup>
| |
| :::::::::::A Mexican, who is repeatedly getting banned for profanity. Been explained already, lad. {{User:Misanthropy/Sig}} 04:04, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
| |
| ::::::::::::That's not what you said though. And its already been said, lad. He's not Mexican, he's Costa Rican. Playing ignorant on his nationality now is offensive. --[[User:Saromu|Sonny Corleone]] <sup>[[DORIS]] [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4pXfHLUlZf4 I jizzed in my pants] [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=91a8pHj7V9k pr0n]</sup> 04:06, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
| |
| :::::::::::::At the time of the initial comment, I doubt anyone on the team here either knew or gave a shit where he was actually from, so it's not a case of playing anything. And I do believe what I said was, in fact, what I said. I can lend you some books on child language acquisition if you're still struggling to understand simple english. {{User:Misanthropy/Sig}} 04:11, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
| |
| ::::::::::::::And I have proof stating the contrary. You are an active member of the #redrum IRC channel, so is Woot, under the nickname Rakuen. He has stated several times that he lives in Costa Rica, of which you acknowledged on IRC and even on the Brainstock forum. Have you forgotten our discussion on the Admins there not allowing Hispanic mods or admins? I do believe we have. Stop playing ignorant, its unbecoming. --[[User:Saromu|Sonny Corleone]] <sup>[[DORIS]] [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4pXfHLUlZf4 I jizzed in my pants] [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=91a8pHj7V9k pr0n]</sup> 04:44, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
| |
| :::::::::::::::Excuse me. This Misconduct case is about '''ME'''. Get back on topic. You people can sort this out on your own misconduct case. --{{User:Rosslessness/Sig}} 10:29, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
| |
| | |
| '''Not Misconduct''' - All sysops are free to have their own opinions on cases. If you feel it was biased, ask for a second opinion. -- {{User:Krazy_Monkey/sig}} 22:00, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
| |
| :Second opinion --[[User:Saromu|Sonny Corleone]] <sup>[[DORIS]] [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4pXfHLUlZf4 I jizzed in my pants] [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=91a8pHj7V9k pr0n]</sup> 01:49, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
| |
| ::A second opinion is now almost completely pointless. Cheese's NM stands as there's no way you can infer involvement as with Mis' NM. Therefore the current score stands at 1-0 NM. You require a minimum of 2 misconduct rulings and no further no misconduct rulings to win this case. Given that there are nine sysops other than Kevan's accounts, you've seemingly disqualified three, although I can deliver precedent allowing them to vote, and Cheese has already voted meaning you have to get your two misconducts from the pool of:
| |
| ::*Boxy - Not going to happen, if he does show up to rule it'll be a carbon copy of either my long post or an 'As Cheese'
| |
| ::*The Rooster - Never rules on these. Ever.
| |
| ::*Red Hawk One - Said he'd never rule on these, but lies a lot so might, but he'll still vote NM
| |
| ::*Suicidal Angel - Struck his original misconduct ruling and then has refrained from further rulings
| |
| ::*The General - Your best chance for a misconduct ruling as a final act of spite before he's slung out on his ass at his upcoming re-evaluation
| |
| ::Even if The General does actual show and act like a petulant child, it's still a tied vote and you need a majority to convict. This'll run for one more week and then be closed as not misconduct. -- {{User:Iscariot/Signature}} 02:16, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
| |
| :::I'm allowed to have a second opinion so I'll seek a second opinion. --[[User:Saromu|Sonny Corleone]] <sup>[[DORIS]] [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4pXfHLUlZf4 I jizzed in my pants] [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=91a8pHj7V9k pr0n]</sup> 12:15, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
| |
| ::::Seems fair. You might need to message the other sops directly on their talk pages. tried with Boxy, but as yet no response. --{{User:Rosslessness/Sig}} 15:54, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
| |
| ::::Wake up, moron, this entire case ''is'' your second opinion. You bring the whole thing to try an get the case reversed in A/VB and it doesn't work. So what, it's a third opinion you want now? Confirmation on the confirmation? I used to think Iscariot was the master of dragging dead cases out... --{{User:DanceDanceRevolution/sig3}} 22:17, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
| |
| ::::::You mad? --[[User:Saromu|Sonny Corleone]] <sup>[[DORIS]] [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4pXfHLUlZf4 I jizzed in my pants] [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=91a8pHj7V9k pr0n]</sup> 15:30, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
| |
| :::::Christ, are you two having brain tumours for breakfast? He's entitled to ''ask'' for a second opinion. He's not entitled to ''get'' a second opinion. These cases have valid rulings on them for not misconduct. After a week of no substantial contribution you just declare them closed as not misconduct. -- {{User:Iscariot/Signature}} 22:28, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
| |
| ::::::Don't be stupid. That's what I was disagreeing with in the first place :/ --{{User:DanceDanceRevolution/sig3}} 22:38, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
| |
| '''Not Misconduct''' - although I don't entirely agree with the a/vb ruling <small>-- <span style="text-shadow: #bbb 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em">[[User:Boxy|<span style="color: Red">boxy</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Boxy|<span style="color: Red">talk</span>]] • [[The Rules|teh rulz]]</sup></span> 21:22 20 March 2010 (BST)</small>
| |
| | |
| ===[[User:Misanthropy]]===
| |
| | |
| Ruling not misconduct on a case of two sysops ruling not vandalism against him. The sysop community is not supposed to be a clique but an impartial group of dedicated wiki editors. --[[User:Saromu|Sonny Corleone]] <sup>[[DORIS]] [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4pXfHLUlZf4 I jizzed in my pants] [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=91a8pHj7V9k pr0n]</sup> 22:54, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
| |
| :According to Iscariot's above post, there's precedent allowing Cyberbob to vote not on his own case, so I don't really see the involved parties clause extending over this.--{{User:Yonnua Koponen/signature}} 22:56, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
| |
| ::That was his own misconduct case. This is different. Misanthropy is covering DDR and Rosslessness for covering him. This would be misconduct. --[[User:Saromu|Sonny Corleone]] <sup>[[DORIS]] [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4pXfHLUlZf4 I jizzed in my pants] [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=91a8pHj7V9k pr0n]</sup> 23:02, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
| |
| :::Were you not paying atttention? Mis votes not misconduct on this, DDR and Ross vote not misconduct, so does Boxy in a more wordy manner. And you get an escalation for shitting up admin pages. Especially since there's no actual case here, except a long rambling chain of causality that's only some sort of conspiracy in your head. -- {{User:Iscariot/Signature}} 23:07, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
| |
| ::::One to talk about conspiracies, Iscariot... --[[User:Saromu|Sonny Corleone]] <sup>[[DORIS]] [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4pXfHLUlZf4 I jizzed in my pants] [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=91a8pHj7V9k pr0n]</sup> 23:17, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
| |
| :::::Go bait the newbies and declare war on a Brainstock group, nobody who's been on here more than 10 minutes thinks these cases are going to do anything but bite you in the ass. -- {{User:Iscariot/Signature}} 23:18, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
| |
| | |
| I didn't expect you to be so prompt, Sonbun, I'm pleasantly surprised. {{User:Misanthropy/Sig}} 23:29, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
| |
| | |
| Goddamn you are such a little bitch when you don't get your own way Sonny. {{User:Cyberbob240/Sig}} 01:37, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
| |
| | |
| | |
| <s>Barring the fact that Sonny is in raeg mode, Mis DID break the ToU by calling him a dirty mexican. '''Misconduct(warning/softie)''', quit that shit yo'. >:| --[[User_talk:Suicidalangel|<span style="color: DarkTurquoise">Big</span>]][[User:Cyberbob240/Classifications|<span style="color: DarkMagenta"> Cat</span>]] 02:07, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
| |
| :Debatable, but irrelevant. This is concerning me ruling not misconduct above, not whether or not I broke the ToU. There's a case on A/VB for that one. Silly moo. {{User:Misanthropy/Sig}} 02:11, 14 March 2010 (UTC)</s>
| |
| | |
| I am a silly moo who woke up much too groggy this morning and must re-evaluate what happened to half of my beard and figure out how coffee got every where. :| --[[User_talk:Suicidalangel|<span style="color: DarkTurquoise">Big</span>]][[User:Cyberbob240/Classifications|<span style="color: DarkMagenta"> Cat</span>]] 05:37, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
| |
| | |
| NEW THING! I've decided while this isn't misconduct-able out right, as shit can get confusing with the precedents people use and abuse around here, you were still an involved party. I've stricken your decisions above, and this case is now over and can be archived. Problem solved, little fuss, ja?--[[User_talk:Suicidalangel|<span style="color: DarkTurquoise">Big</span>]][[User:Cyberbob240/Classifications|<span style="color: DarkMagenta"> Cat</span>]] 05:45, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
| |
| :Well if his vote for the other 2 do not count then I'm perfectly fine with this decision. --[[User:Saromu|Sonny Corleone]] <sup>[[DORIS]] [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4pXfHLUlZf4 I jizzed in my pants] [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=91a8pHj7V9k pr0n]</sup> 06:32, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
| |
| ::They will not. We need to stamp down on this "voting when involved" shit. And you need to consolidate mirror-cases in the future, as they get archived properly in the end anyway. :| --[[User_talk:Suicidalangel|<span style="color: DarkTurquoise">Big</span>]][[User:Cyberbob240/Classifications|<span style="color: DarkMagenta"> Cat</span>]] 07:52, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
| |
| :::So you're saying that despite me thinking this is misconduct, I can't actually vote this way? You'll go ahead and strike my vote? --{{User:DanceDanceRevolution/sig3}} 08:09, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
| |
| ::::Involved party? Y/N?--[[User_talk:Suicidalangel|<span style="color: DarkTurquoise">Big</span>]][[User:Cyberbob240/Classifications|<span style="color: DarkMagenta"> Cat</span>]] 23:34, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
| |
| :::::It was my case in which his vote was made (and already struck so regardless of my vote it won't change that). Thoughts? --{{User:DanceDanceRevolution/sig3}} 08:34, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
| |
| | |
| '''Not Misconduct''' - Frivolous. -- {{User:Krazy_Monkey/sig}} 21:56, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
| |
| | |
| '''Misconduct''' - Don't rule on cases against yourself <small>-- <span style="text-shadow: #bbb 0.2em 0.2em 0.4em">[[User:Boxy|<span style="color: Red">boxy</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Boxy|<span style="color: Red">talk</span>]] • [[The Rules|teh rulz]]</sup></span> 21:25 20 March 2010 (BST)</small>
| |
| | |
| This case has been up too long without any input, something I delayed as the user who's A/M case he ruled on initially... Fuck it. '''Misconduct''', in cases like this I always remember [[UDWiki:Administration/Misconduct/Archive/Hagnat/2008#2008.2C_May_10|these]] two [[UDWiki:Administration/Misconduct/Archive/Krazy_Monkey/2008#2008.2C_June_8|precedents]] which spawned from the events in [[UDWiki:Administration/Vandal_Banning/Archive/2008_05#User:Karek_and_User:Hagnat|this case]] and the case [[UDWiki:Administration/Vandal_Banning/Archive/2008_05#User:Krazy_Monkey|above it]], respectively. They aren't identical to this but it follows a very similar principle. I know Misanthropy was just playing the drama, but trolling begets trolling=bad. If any other sysop actually thinks my vote is illegal they may strike it. --{{User:DanceDanceRevolution/sig3}} 09:06, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
| |
| | |
| As I'm archiving the other two- what say we? Misconduct, warning? Don't think anything worse applies here. --{{User:DanceDanceRevolution/sig3}} 05:55, 23 March 2010 (UTC)
| |
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.
