UDWiki:Administration/Misconduct

From The Urban Dead Wiki

Administration Services

Sysop List | Guidelines | Policies (Discussion) | Promotions (Bureaucrat) Deletions (Scheduling) | Speedy Deletions | Undeletions | Vandal Banning | Vandal Data Protections | Arbitration | Misconduct | Demotions | Discussion | Move Requests

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.

Contents 1 Guidelines for System Operator Misconduct Reporting 2 Administrative Abilities 3 Example of Misconduct Proceedings 4 Misconduct Cases Currently Under Consideration 4.1 Nubis 4.2 Karek

[edit] 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 will mete out the punishment (if deemed necessary), and then move the case to the Archive.

[edit] 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.

[edit] 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)

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)

[edit] Misconduct Cases Currently Under Consideration

[edit] Nubis

For giving me vandal warning over an edit to a borderline 'impersonation case.

The details of the case are here.

However, to summarise the background of the case:

I posted a suggestion... This suggestion was copied by another user almost word-for-word, with 'no distinction or differentiation made in its title/header from my original suggestion. It was, in fact, a carbon-copy of my suggestion with only a few words changed at the very end. The sole purpose of the "new" suggestion was quite obviuosly to troll me. I therefore changed the heading to differentiate it from my own. There was no "bad faith" in my edit. I sought to avoid drama by simply making a change to clarify what was an obvious bad faith edit which bordered on impersonation.

I believe that Nubis' use of the ban hammer was quite unwarranted -- especially given the broader context of this case -- and it appears to be an abuse of his sysop powers in order to "make a point" against a user whom he has a personal dislike for and/or differences of opinion with.

That is all.

Have a nice day. --WanYao 03:42, 24 August 2008 (BST)

Not Misconduct - You have never been banned, only warned. If other sysops believe the warning was unwarranted, then they will voice their opinions. If it is decided to be not vandalism then the warning will be purged from your record. -- AHLGTH 05:29, 24 August 2008 (BST)

Misconduct- The warning was absolutely absurd. The fact it was only a warning and not a ban does not in any way diminish that. Nubis made a terrible call against someone against whom he, to all external appearances, has some kind of grudge against. I move for a warning. --The Grimch ^{U! E!} 07:36, 24 August 2008 (BST)

Grim remember this:

Vandalism - Someone else created the suggestion there, someone else created the headers. The headers are very strongly implied to be the work of the author of the suggestion. Leaving them in the generic default doesnt give other people the right to change them to insult the poster of the suggestion, correcting them to match the suggestion is fine when left in th default (Much the same as a typo correction), but that did not happen here. Feel free to be insulting in your own posts, but do not resort to impersonation to do so. Also, the edit was entirely made in bad faith, and asking only really applies when there is some doubt over the intent of teh edit. No matter how hard i try i cannnot see how this was made in any small part in good faith. --The Grimch U! E! 04:08, 7 August 2008 (BST) FYI: Im holding off on processing this due to Nubis's stance here. --The Grimch U! E! 04:10, 7 August 2008 (BST)

--– Nubis' Lynch Mob 13:11, 24 August 2008 (BST)

I was actually the only one to say it wasn't vandalism since it was the same thing that Grim did for J3D.--– Nubis' Lynch Mob 13:15, 24 August 2008 (BST)

I also find it funny that changing the header to such a lame joke that Ioncannon made it is the type of vandalism that we want to stop yet Wan's trolling and shitting up admin pages is just lovely. Wan, "Burn the witch" is hardly a constructive contribution to the page.--– Nubis' Lynch Mob 13:15, 24 August 2008 (BST)

Maybe Wan should have changed the header on HIS OWN SUGGESTION instead of vandalizing someone else's.--– Nubis' Lynch Mob 13:16, 24 August 2008 (BST)

Maybe Ellaandcharlie's headers should have been different in the first place. --Midianian^{|T|T:S|C:RCS|} 14:16, 24 August 2008 (BST)

While I cannot claim to read Nubis' mind, it is no secret that he has considered a number of my A/VB reports to be "frivolous"... And that my often vocal concerns with the problem of serial trolling on this wiki do not to measure up to the Something Awful standards of macho "it's-just-the-internetz-grin-and-bear-it" toughness" -- to which Nubis aspires. To the point of issueing a "soft warning" recently for my "frivolous" cases. And, I presume, this warning had something to do with driving that point home. Sure looks like it from where I stand... And, I predict he's very likely to bring up these "frivolous" cases in some capacity in his "defence" (or, even more likely, pretend, now that I've mentioned it, that he was going to do no such thing...).

However, I find it curious that my "frivolous" VB cases are of more concern than to him than the serial trolling that goes on regularly on this wiki. Which trolling has often been the subject of my "frivolous" VB cases and comments. And which trolling, as demonstrated by Nubis' consistent comments and actions, are apparently just o-kay spiffy with him... The lack of any ethical or professional compass here is pretty clear to me... if not to others...

Very shortly before this (now overruled) vandal warning was posted to my Talk page, I had chosen to have nothing to any longer with any "administrative" matters on this wiki, nor to contribute any longer to the Talk:Suggestions page -- because I want nothing further to do with the trolls' free-for-all playground that this wiki has become. I find it very interesting how very soon after I edited my user page to reflect this fact, Nubis decided that it was time to level this vandalism warning against me... After the case had been sitting in VB for almost two full days... Frankly, I do not think the timing was a concidence...

Yeah... I made the right decision to walk away... Just, sometimes, people don't let you do such things quite as quickly and cleanly as you'd like. --WanYao 08:29, 24 August 2008 (BST)

Well, that's surprising. I always thought you were a much tougher guy, WanYao. Surely you won't let that let you down, will you? --Aeon17x 08:55, 24 August 2008 (BST)

Not Misconduct But I also think this could have been a place for one of those "soft warnings" as opposed to an official one... Conndraka^{mod TTBA CFT} 15:27, 24 August 2008 (BST)

I agree, he didn't go around banhammering users or torturing puppies, he just voted on an A/VB case, which is within the rights of his Sysop powers. If we start Misconducting people for that then our entire system is gonna hit the fan. Techercizer ^(Food) _(TSoE) 15:55, 24 August 2008 (BST)

No, he didn't "just vote on an A/VB case". He unilaterally declared my edits to be vandalism and then slapped a warning on me. He did so in a very sketchy case, where it was most certainly not clear that it was vandalism; in a case which was not about my vandalism (why not a separate case brought up against me, if I was so out of line?). He make that very controversial call without consultation, without allowing other sysops to vote on the matter or even to discuss it. And he did not apply similar or consistent standards of conduct to the user who literally plagiarised my own work in an effort to troll to the Talk:Suggestions page. Yup, plagiarism is a-okay to Nubis; identifying and correcting said plagiarism is ZOMG vandalism in Nubis' book. As I said above, "The lack of any ethical or professional compass here is pretty clear to me..." --WanYao 18:11, 24 August 2008 (BST)

Nope, Not Misconduct, and I have half a mind to re-enforce the ruling. Either both things are vandalism and you_(Wanyao) vandalized first or you were filing a petty case in which case you were wasting everyone's time and that too should warrant at the very least a soft warning, possibly more because you know better. If you're making the argument that his was impersonation and yours wasn't you're fighting a loosing battle, especially because your edit obviously wasn't just for ease of navigation and they're edit was obviously a response to yours which makes that course of action seem both reasonable and allowed. You and Nubis might not get along but I'm not too sure I wouldn't have made the same call as Nubis.--Karek^maps?! 18:22, 24 August 2008 (BST)

Reporting blatant (and disruptive, trollish) plagiarism is not petty... Neither is correcting such (disruptive and trollish) plagiarism a bad faith edit. But, as I have said, "The lack of any ethical or professional compass here is pretty clear to me... if not to others..." --WanYao 18:58, 24 August 2008 (BST)

So what if he trolled first, you escalated it and then filed a report when he did the same thing to you. I'm failing to see what makes his more vandalism when you were the one that changed the rules of the game.--Karek^maps?! 20:49, 24 August 2008 (BST)

Wan didn't escalate the trolling, he simply changed the header (in a neutral fashion) so that people replying to his suggestion wouldn't get take to the newer one from the automatic links on Special:Recentchanges. It's entirely reasonable for the newer suggestion's headers to be the ones that get changed, because the old one has already been established as using that header. As to the vandal report, yes it was a bit petty, but he did think better of it, and withdrew it soon after filing it (before any other discussion/decisions happened). It was basically finished -- boxy ^{talk • i} 10:41 25 August 2008 (BST)

Not misconduct - Although I disagreed with the ruling, Nubis has a right to his opinion on the issue -- boxy ^{talk • i} 10:41 25 August 2008 (BST)

[edit] Karek

Protected A/VB and A/SD in violation of The guidelines of this wiki. It is not subject to scheduling, it was not being vandalised, and there was no protections request filed through A/PT. Relevant logs Here and Here for A/VB and A/SD respectively. Ive just unfucked them so the pages are usable again. --The Grimch ^{U! E!} 19:02, 20 August 2008 (BST)

Those links don't seem to work. Try these: ein und zwei. -- Cheese ^{WTF!RandomSysOp?} 19:22, 20 August 2008 (BST)

There was a problem regarding that apparently protected pages don't allow normal users to see Transcluded Edit links(the whole purpose of the rework was/is to remove the ability to edit the 2000+ diff page while keeping usability). --Karek^maps?! 19:33, 20 August 2008 (BST)

I fully understand and support what you were trying to do, i just wish you did it by the book. Thats why we are here. A little more testing pre-implimentation would not have hurt either. --The Grimch ^{U! E!} 19:43, 20 August 2008 (BST)

What does that mean in English? O_o -- Cheese ^{WTF!RandomSysOp?} 20:10, 20 August 2008 (BST)

I like what he is doing to A/SD and A/VB. He should have followed the guidelines in implimenting the protections part, and he should have tested it too first. Im sorry, but if what i said last was unclear then perhaps you are in dire need of something to do your thinking for you. --The Grimch ^{U! E!} 20:26, 20 August 2008 (BST)

Yeah, it was pretty simple...

Also, Couldn't Karek have posted some kind of disclaimer or warning or notification that he was doing it? Quite a panic could have arisen amongst normal users if a large amount had logged on to discover the A/VB page out of action. Anything from a footnote to a WikiNews event would have greatly helped. Techercizer ^(Food) _(TSoE) 20:30, 20 August 2008 (BST)

I got the bit you said, I was wondering about what Karek said. -- Cheese ^{WTF!RandomSysOp?} 20:57, 20 August 2008 (BST)

The A/VB and A/SD pages became locked solid, normal users couldn't edit them or their discussion pages in any way (including to make reports) Techercizer ^(Food) _(TSoE) 21:24, 20 August 2008 (BST)

I am glad I am not a sysop ... Because on the one hand, what Karek did was not bad faith, it was an attempt to improve things. Be bold! as the saying goes... But on the other hand, he fucked up. Badly. And, didn't go through standard procedures... So one the one hand, demoting Karek doesn't really seem to follow the spirit of policy -- because there was no wilful abuse of sysop powers going down. But on the other hand... it really made a mess... Good luck with this, ladies and Germs fans. --WanYao 23:10, 20 August 2008 (BST)

Before I do anything, what was the purpose of protecting those pages? -- AHLGTH 23:50, 20 August 2008 (BST)

It's to do with this discussion, presumably the protection was done so that other users didn't attempt to edit the main A/VB page instead of the sections as they are meant to in this new system (sort of like people used to edit their suggestions into the category page instead of creating new pages when we changed the suggestions system). Unfortunately the section edit links show up for sysops on protected pages, but not for ordinary users. A minor hiccup, brought on by only discussing it in the sysop discussion area :-/ -- boxy ^{talk • i} 00:04 21 August 2008 (BST)

You could always make a fake [edit] to fix that problem. Should be no different. -- AHLGTH 00:10, 21 August 2008 (BST)

I don't believe that he's being put on Misconduct for not creating a fake edit symbol Gnome... Techercizer ^(Food) _(TSoE) 00:28, 21 August 2008 (BST)

No no, just a possible solution to the edit-protected-page-problem. Although, the fake [edit] wouldn't really work with a real edit on the A/VB archive, so we might need a fake header instead? -- AHLGTH 00:30, 21 August 2008 (BST)

If it is related to the discussion boxy linked (like I think it is) then it is clearly Not Misconduct. --– Nubis' Lynch Mob 00:48, 21 August 2008 (BST)

Even though he ignored the proper procedures for protecting a page, such as submitting it to A/P or having an urgent reason? Techercizer ^(Food) _(TSoE) 01:16, 21 August 2008 (BST)

You really don't understand what this is about and all you see is PROTECTED PAGE RAWR RAWR! He wasn't protecting the page to stop people from using it. Read the link boxy posted. Seriously. It was posted on an Admin discussion page. I'm sorry if that page isn't as drama filled as VB and therefore no one reads it, but it is still a legit page. --– Nubis' Lynch Mob 02:31, 21 August 2008 (BST)

I never said he protected the page to stop people from using it, and I don't think that anyone here thinks he had malicious intent. I do, however, believe, that he ignored the proper channels and protocol for protection, and that is Misconduct. No one's saying A/AD isn't a legit page, but posting an idea on there does not give someone the authority to instantly act it out. Now please either stop screaming long enough to actually understand what I was saying, or go yell at me on your talk page. Techercizer ^(Food) _(TSoE) 02:46, 21 August 2008 (BST)

Let me get this straight. A discussion was posted on the Admin discussion page about a serious issue with a popular page. An Admin discussion page that, well, Admins should read and discuss things on. I found it, boxy, Karek, and AHLG saw it. The discussion had been going on for over a week. So, you expected him to post a request to protect a page on a page handled by sysops (the same sysops that should have been reading Admin discussion page)? So, if sysops are supposed to be reading the Admin Discussion page and sysops are the ones that decide on Protections why should he have to post it twice and get "permission" on the Protection page when no one was objecting to it on the Discussion page? If a page is posted on A/PT it only takes one sysop to approve it. You had 3 other sysops approving it on the discussions page.

I'm the first with torches when sysops abuse their powers, but this isn't an abuse. This was trying to fix something and it not quite working out. Big deal. Nothing was lost or deleted. No one was banned unfairly. When he figures out the code (if he still works on it after this bullshit) then next time there won't be any snafus like making the page unusable for a bit. --– Nubis' Lynch Mob 03:22, 21 August 2008 (BST)

Don't forget that A/PT also serves to let users know what pages should be protected, who requested it and why.--J3D^SR! 03:36, 21 August 2008 (BST)

Because you all never read any other parts of the wiki? That maybe if you had taken an interest in something other than the drama fests you would have seen the discussion about trying to fix functionality of those pages. Maybe you all should have realized that it wasn't locked in a screw you way but as an unfortunate side effect that if the coding had worked the way he thought it would no one would have even noticed.

As much as I am arguing to defend this you would think that that was my name up there. But here's why.(I'm too annoyed to dig up all the links, but these are things Karek has done) Karek is sysop that wants the other sysops to be decent to the users (not a civility policy, but following wikipedia's don't feed the trolls policy) which if followed would cut down on a lot of aggression and whining about Grim. Karek is a voice of reason on the suggestions page and votes without pissing people off (as is Swiers). Karek's name regularly appears on maintenance tasks that are mind numbing and dull but need to be done. Karek is proactive in fixing this wiki. He's an intelligent sysop that still actually fucking works around here rather than just handling the easy stuff. He shouldn't get a black mark on his record for something that is ultimately for the betterment of the wiki.

You all need to decide if you are serving the interests of the wiki or serving the bureaucracy.--– Nubis' Lynch Mob 13:48, 21 August 2008 (BST)

I don't understand the background to this case or what karek was trying to do but while it seems in good faith a disregard for the proper channels surely has to result in misconduct. I mean it's not like he's getting demoted or anything...--J3D^SR! 01:43, 21 August 2008 (BST)

Comment removed I had the wrong user in mind. Sorry. I get you confused with someone else. --– Nubis' Lynch Mob 02:37, 21 August 2008 (BST)

heh. jedaz? i get confused there sometimes too...--J3D^SR! 03:03, 21 August 2008 (BST)

I really don't see the problem here. He protected a page without going through A/PT. Misconduct pure and simple. No, he wasn't abusing his powers, he just forgot to do it the way you're supposed to do things, and should get a reminder. Why can't you people just acknowledge the error, give him a warning or something, and move on? --Midianian^{|T|T:S|C:RCS|} 12:50, 21 August 2008 (BST)

I'm going to give you a warning about shitting up admin pages as a reminder. You just go ahead and "move on" KTHXBI.--– Nubis' Lynch Mob 13:48, 21 August 2008 (BST)

Go ahead, you'll get a misconduct case of your own you can move on from. My point is that he's not being accused of violating the corpse of Mother Teresa with the remains of Gandhi. Just forgetting to do things properly, which he did do. Geez, the way people act in Misconduct seems like a sysop would always get demoted, permabanned, hanged, drawn and quartered from one case that was ruled Misconduct. --Midianian^{|T|T:S|C:RCS|} 14:06, 21 August 2008 (BST)

I agree, pretty much everyone here admits that Karek ignored the proper channels, but pretty much everyone here acknowledges that he did what he did in good faith. This case should be a straight forward slap-on-the-wrist process, all this screaming and drama really isn't necessary. Techercizer ^(Food) _(TSoE) 16:01, 21 August 2008 (BST)

Because this is a witch hunt... Because too many people are back-seat modding without all the facts, hell without even their feet out of their mouths... Yeah... this wiki is a pretty messed up little scene... And, all the uninformed backseat modding... is what causes the 90% of the screaming and the drama... **le sigh** --WanYao 18:08, 21 August 2008 (BST)

To Midianian and Tech - Your attitude is exactly the problem I'm raging against. If it is just a slap on the wrist What's the fucking point of Misconduct then? Why not just put a Warning on Vandal Data? Why even mention it at all? Just fix the edit, leave a note on his talk page, and advise him to try it on a sandbox a few more times before going live again. Does that seem unreasonable?

Misconduct is a joke because casual attitudes like yours have made it one. Think about it, if he gets a misconduct vote on this it has the same weight as if he had banned random people for no reason. For fuck's sake, Grim's last misconduct case wasn't even about using a sysop power (it was about a comment on a talk page). Misconduct cases need to be drawing and quartering offenses. If a sysop isn't going to get demoted or banned as punishment for his act why bother? Why not just handle it as vandalism? There is no demotion at X amounts of cases (guilty or not) so why keep track? There is no misconduct de-escalation either. Why can't sysops get the same rights as average users? Misconduct needs an overhaul.

(and having said that I don't think this should even be a Misconduct case)--– Nubis' Lynch Mob 15:25, 22 August 2008 (BST)

Honestly, if this could be an A/VB style warning it'd make a lot more sense, both in execution and outcome, but because it entails the use of sysop powers I don't think it's supposed to go through A/VB. Maybe some kind of level system for Misconduct cases is in order? Or perhaps some way to try Misconduct cases as A/VB cases if the involved parties agree it wasn't too severe... Techercizer ^(Food) _(TSoE) 16:11, 22 August 2008 (BST)

Yes, Misconduct needs an overhaul. --Midianian^{|T|T:S|C:RCS|} 21:41, 22 August 2008 (BST)

I take that back... the backseat modding is annoying, but not the biggest problem. Or, rather, a symptom of something else?[1] --WanYao 18:23, 21 August 2008 (BST)

ironyironyirony?--J3D^SR! 07:11, 22 August 2008 (BST)

Nope, no irony at all... Behind the snideness is a very serious point... --WanYao 12:20, 22 August 2008 (BST)

Not Misconduct: Once again my view involves a look at the motivations of the edit. If a code monkey wanders off the reservation, he doesn't deserve to get shot. Conndraka^{mod TTBA CFT} 23:23, 21 August 2008 (BST)

Well said!--– Nubis' Lynch Mob 15:25, 22 August 2008 (BST)