UDWiki talk:Administration/Misconduct

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

Boxy

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

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

Nubis

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Status lines

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"All discussion of misconduct should occur on this page, not the talk page - any discussion on the talk page will be merged into this page once discovered." -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 14:00, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

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

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

Example case

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