UDWiki talk:Administration/Misconduct

Move all discussions related to a misconduct case to the archive once a verdict has been reached, and general discussion ended.

Last page

Can someone restore this please, my broswer refuses to load the page. :P --Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 18:32, 7 June 2010 (BST)

Aaaaarrrrchive!

We've got stuff from cases from 2008 and 2009 up there. I would do it myself, but the Misconduct archive pages are protected. --Akule ^{Maker of fine, hand-crafted UDWiki sass since 2006 -- Akule School's back in session™} 22:28, 14 April 2011 (BST)

Have moved all stuff directly related to individual ops to the respective talk pages. Will figure out the remaining stuff later, unless someones beats me to it. -- Spiderzed▋ 22:50, 14 April 2011 (BST)

Thanks. --Akule ^{Maker of fine, hand-crafted UDWiki sass since 2006 -- Akule School's back in session™} 00:44, 15 April 2011 (BST)

Should be Administration/Misconduct/Archive/2008 and Administration/Misconduct/Archive/2009. Both yet to be created. --Karek^maps?! 01:37, 15 April 2011 (BST)

Should be done. --Karek^maps?! 01:40, 15 April 2011 (BST)

We just need links to 2008 Archive and 2009 Archive on the general Misconduct discussion archive page. --Akule ^{Maker of fine, hand-crafted UDWiki sass since 2006 -- Akule School's back in session™} 01:50, 15 April 2011 (BST)

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

Actually, forgot those on my pages too. --Karek^maps?! 02:01, 15 April 2011 (BST)

archiving cases

Seriously, stop with the archiving cases but leaving all the content on the main A/M page, it's stupid. I don't know who started it or why but it makes shit all sense and just doubles up the chore later on if people put more content on the A/M case. When you archive an A/M case, move it there, don't just copy and paste and leave it for someone else to clean up later. -- ϑ^anceϑ^anceℜ^evolution 04:43, 13 July 2011 (BST)

And again! Next person who does it I'm going to take a plane, land in their home town and punch them in the schnozz. -- ϑ^anceϑ^anceℜ^evolution 15:51, 20 July 2011 (BST)

I'd suggest removing the header at the bottom then or just changing it to Concluded Misconduct Cases with a link to the archives. ~ _{15:57, 20 July 2011 (UTC)}

Whatever involves not leaving the entire contents on two pages.... -- ϑ^anceϑ^anceℜ^evolution 16:37, 20 July 2011 (BST)

Agree with vapor. A link to cases concluded in the past ... say, seven days... with a simple summary of the case should be the best way to give the community a good way to keep track of wuts going on with the admin staff --hagnat 20:45, 20 July 2011 (BST)

Yes we all know your hardon for that sort of stuff. If you can be fucked, then do it. I'll just be wiping them, I'd imagine. -- ϑ^anceϑ^anceℜ^evolution 00:52, 21 July 2011 (BST)

Current Misconduct Case

i'm not trying to rock the boat here...i'm only seeking clarity. my question probably doesn't belong here but it's related to the current misconduct case. if i use an open proxy server for personal reasons, and i vandalize several pages while using the proxy (meaning the two violations are initially unrelated), will i be warned/banned for both violations if i continue to violate both policies? if i change the wording and say...i use an open proxy server to intentionally vandalize the wiki, will i be punished for 1 or both?
i read the UDWiki:Administration/Policies...the proxy policy only has votes on it's page...are the policies for reg users under one umbrella (same punishment for different violations) and do the punishments stack (2 warnings for 2 violations or only 1 warning for both)?
since sysops are held to a higher standard, you all have a misconduct policy, correct? and since the vandalism policy is for all users including sysops, it's a separate issue, correct? so if the intent was mischief, not abuse of sysop power, then that is clearly vandalism using sysop power which is also misconduct. i think intent is the key factor. if a sysop intends to piss people off via vandalism, that's blatant misconduct. the example of misconduct on UDWiki:Administration/Misconduct is not blatant misconduct. -- →Son of Sin← 14:08, 9 October 2011 (BST)

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

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

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

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

i understand.

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

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

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

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

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

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

...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

No, they haven't, it's been allowed based on relation to the determination of misconduct, and they definitely are not allowed in the ruling section. If you guys stopped enforcing that policy for a time that's your shenanigans. --Karek^{maps 2.0?!} 22:37, 12 October 2011 (BST)

No, like, it's literally always been allowed non-stop in all cases at all points except for in sysop only votes.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 23:09, 12 October 2011 (BST)

Non-sysops have no say in rulings. ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 04:42, 13 October 2011 (BST)

Under the normal misconduct circumstances i agree but this time I ^ revenant annoying 08:44, 13 October 2011 (BST)

No, it actually hasn't. I provided some links. The rule is there because it's saying that we can reverse shunt you in cases where we decide a comment elsewhere is relevant to the case. 99% of the time we quote or link to the comment instead of moving it when it's outside of the primary talk page. The rule is very clear that it's applied to discussion relevant to the determination of whether or not something is misconduct as opposed to, say, A/VB or any other of the pages where external user input that may or may not be relevant is preferred via talk pages(note that over the years we loosened that particular policy for only relevant commentary). It's always been the rule de jure that obstructive(more than slight non-relevant) commentary be removed at discretion. --Karek^{maps 2.0?!} 13:07, 13 October 2011 (BST)

Certainly I think the first two comments that you removed were relevant discussion by the community. There's no sysop only restriction on Misconduct and hence it is merely a case of evaluating the comment's value and relevance. Thad's first one is talking about whether or not it makes sense to give two warnings - this is definitely relevant. Mine states that I don't think 2 warnings is severe enough given his history - once again relevant. After that it does indeed get off topic. But certainly those 2 comments deserve to be on the main page, would you not agree?--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 13:15, 13 October 2011 (BST)

Actually it specifically states "If misconduct occurs, it is important that the rest of the sysop team be able to review the charges as necessary." and later that they will mete out punishment deemed necessary by their review. In this case you're discussing the determination of punishment not the case, without citing relevant past rulings of similar cases or, really, adding anything to the discussion other than personal opinion, which is why I moved those two instances. --Karek^{maps 2.0?!} 13:37, 13 October 2011 (BST)

But the point is that there's no rule against users expressing their opinions on the misconduct page. Although they have no authority, users have an equal right to post what they think should be the outcome of the case. My point in particular expressed that I believed a more severe punishment was necessary, because he not only had committed the same act in the past but was fully aware of it at the time.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 13:40, 13 October 2011 (BST)

This is, more or less, exactly why we have administrative talk pages and why we read them. Fortunately I am also espousing that same point in part and adding weight in the determination to the view that the proposed "warning" isn't an appropriately weighted punishment to his actions. --Karek^{maps 2.0?!} 13:47, 13 October 2011 (BST)

Well I don't think any form of warning is sufficient. Warnings are meant to serve as a deterrent to prevent the warned party from doing it again. As Misanthropy clearly doesn't respond to this form of punishment, I feel a more severe punishment is necessary. As this isn't A/VB there's no need to follow the escalation system and a more fitting punishment should be implemented.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 16:21, 13 October 2011 (BST)

Sigh, here are some examples. Big Grim case, Some Haggers cases, Some Nubis cases. --Karek^{maps 2.0?!} 07:17, 13 October 2011 (BST)

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. /end of discussion. -- Thadeous Oakley Talk 11:31, 13 October 2011 (BST)

You are not a sysop and further reverting of this action will be brought up as an A/VB case. I've cited my sources that establish to be be a normal and previously used practice for behavior of the sort both you and Yonnua's. To paraphrase myself to Iscariot 3 years ago "If it's not relevant to the determination of if something is misconduct it's not discussion of misconduct, if you are not a ruling sysop or an involved party stay the fuck off the main page." That's long been the rule of thumb since the establishment of those rules(note the last major editor of the A/M guidelines btw). If this were A/VB you would have been appropriately banned about two edits ago. --Karek^{maps 2.0?!} 12:52, 13 October 2011 (BST)

And as a note MisterGame: Other users try and discuss why something was done and what applicable past action might apply to it before undoing something like this. Especially when a sysop is telling you you're making it harder to use A/M and not adding anything to the case. Other users actually take the time to respond in point why the previous examples the performing user posted as an explanation of the action suddenly aren't valid instead of quoting a policy that has clearly been treated in a manner consistent with the action being performed before(as cited in at least 3 cases). Other users actually understand that policy discussion is the appropriate way to resolve disputes. It's not a hard fucking concept, try and be responsible like, say, AHLG, Funt, DDR(we may not agree often but at least he's willing to consider someone else might be doing something for a reason) or even the subject of this case Misanthropy for once in your long time on this wiki instead of gut reacting as per usual. Yes, I'm not the most civil seeming of people but believe it or not if you can actually attempt to gather a point I'll take the time to discuss it, I may not be insanely nice in the discussion but I'll actually consider what opinion you think you might have or why. Revert it though and you'll probably be treated as you're used to from people around here. --Karek^{maps 2.0?!} 12:52, 13 October 2011 (BST)

Yeah fuck you Karek. If Honestmistake can make some fucking asinine vote on Big Grim's Case for the faggots in the community to vote to have their say when it was a sysop-only vote (completely fucking stupid), then the least you dicks can do is deal with me jabbering on like a moron around here. annoying 12:46, 13 October 2011 (BST)

Thank you.--Karek^{maps 2.0?!} 12:57, 13 October 2011 (BST)

And to be fair, a lot of grim's big case was literally "How many people can we get to pile on", at least the first one was. Which makes the fact that some of it was shunted off the main page even more relevant. --Karek^{maps 2.0?!} 12:59, 13 October 2011 (BST)

Please don't cite that clusterfuck of a kangaroo court witch burning as anything except as a textbook example of how Misconduct should not be handled. ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 13:28, 13 October 2011 (BST)

I feel like somebody should point out that it isn't the warning which is struck with a de-escalation, it's an escalation which is struck. The warning doesn't cease to be.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 13:21, 13 October 2011 (BST)

Regarding the double escalation, on A/M there is no set chain of escalations as there is on A/VB. We typically just slap a single escalation on someone along the the A/VD tree, but that is rather common practice than a hard rule. Would be perfectly valid to do it, as long as there is good reason for it. -- Spiderzed█ 20:04, 13 October 2011 (BST)

Absolutely. In fact, I've been mulling it over, and I say we just ban him for the length of time the duck was on the main page. Clean, simple, punishment is directly tied to the crime, and none of the silly integration with VB which seems to be the norm here. ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 22:26, 13 October 2011 (BST)