UDWiki:Administration/Misconduct

Shortcut:
A/M

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

User:Revenant

For blocking User:AinSynagoga for 24hr as per case UDWiki:Administration/Vandal_Banning#AinSynagoga against the blocking rules of UDWiki guidelines, with no reasoning other than that it is an account based purely to troll, which is something we do not interfere with (we have long been against a civilty policy).

Despite being a suspected sockpuppet there was no evidence towards proxy use, we don't warn/ban on flaming, there was no reason to ban the user for 24 hours even if there was only one ruling and the ruling was vandalism (by Revenant, mind). Banning like this during a case is the worst because it doesn't give the account time to prove to us otherwise that they are not a rule-breaking account and can prohibit their ability to mount a defence.

We do not ban users unless we are entirely sure, especially when we aren't doing it as per the regular escalations system. The only time we transcend the escalation rules is when the user is on a harmful vandalism spree and we stop the account vandalising there and then, and even then it's just for 3 hours or so, enough to undo the damage. This was not one of those cases.

This isn't on. Flimsily wording certain policies in an attempt to have your own way is getting more and more tenuous as your term goes on Rev, especially when it directly contravenes other policies, like the Guidelines. That bit's just my opinion though. -- ϑ^anceϑ^anceℜ^evolution 02:32, 28 May 2011 (BST)

I was acting directly in accordance with the Guidelines. Allow me to (re-)quote relevant sections, since it seems you don't actually read what you refer to:

“	3. The user has made at least 3 (three) edits, at least one of which is deemed vandalism, and none of which are deemed to be constructive or to the benefit of the majority of the wiki. 4. A report has been filed through UDWiki:Administration/Vandal Banning, and the user doesn't match any of the previous instances shown above. In this instance, a system operator is specifically given the ability to warn/ban the user before a report is made on UDWiki:Administration/Vandal Banning, as long as the report is placed on that page shortly thereafter by the system operator or someone else. Furthermore, system operators are specifically given the ability to both report and warn/ban a user.	”
—When a User May be Warned or Banned

“	System operators may only warn or ban users who consistently vandalize the wiki. Vandalism is by definition an edit not made in a good-faith attempt to improve this wiki, and includes any actions which are defined to be vandalism by approved polices. Many examples of this can be found on UDWiki:Vandalism. Additionally, some pages may have specific rules as to their usage, and consistent and flagrant disregard for those rules may also be considered vandalism.	”
—What is Considered Vandalism

Can't say I didn't ask for this case, although it seems that was the only part you read:

“	Since I have been the only sysop to rule so far, I am using my discretion and blocking this account for 24 hours while we sort this out. As always, feel free to Misconduct me if you feel it necessary, but please note that per the letter of the rules I can block this account indefinitely.	”
—ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 01:56, 28 May 2011 (BST)

Please stick to the facts and leave the mischaracterisation of my motives out of this, if you would? TIA. ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 02:44, 28 May 2011 (BST)

You couldn't have permabanned the account, unlike what your quote says, and if you had you'd be here for a more important case. He did not commit vandalism. You may think so, which is why you rule, but we rule based on the rules and how they've been handled in the past, and 3ER is only applicable alongside an obvious edit of vandalism. This is not that case, if it were we could just have every user on the wiki banned if they have an argument about a group or a user on a talk page. That's not how we handle it and it is definitely not how we handle it for a single user who's had like 6 edits and probably needs the chance to prove otherwise he's intentions. Also while I'm happy to keep the personal quips out of it, I find it ironic that you're concerned about people mischaracterising you and your intentions, as it's most likely what you did with this account, sept you didn't give him a chance to tell us otherwise. -- ϑ^anceϑ^anceℜ^evolution 02:56, 28 May 2011 (BST)

Also re:not reading, it's worth noting that you should have read what every user who posted on that case said: that your interpretation and misuse of the 3ER is wrong in this case. Because they were most definitely right. -- ϑ^anceϑ^anceℜ^evolution 02:57, 28 May 2011 (BST)

"'The rules only apply when i'm the one quoting them' - DanceDanceRevolution" - - Serious Post. Please do not silly. |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| 03:23, 28 May 2011 (BST)

That literally couldn't make any less sense -- ϑ^anceϑ^anceℜ^evolution 03:42, 28 May 2011 (BST)

Sure it could have; It could be literally anything you say ever, especially when goons are involved. - Serious Post. Please do not silly. |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| 06:37, 28 May 2011 (BST)

Again with cries of bias. Could it be that I am capable of ruling not on the people who do it but the actions they make? Could it be that your feelings of persecution come because you act like a fucking mongtard, rather than the tag you have attached to your shirt or the friends you have? God forbid. I literally thought he was a goon when I unblocked him, because doing my job is what I do, but again the only people who literally are so caught up with the 'bias topic' they are incapable of seeing things from a decent perspective is you and those blindly defending what Revenant does (I dare to wonder why). -- ϑ^anceϑ^anceℜ^evolution 07:15, 28 May 2011 (BST)

When an account is created to do nothing but troll a specific group, why should they be given a chance to prove other intentions? Nothing good was ever going to come from him, just like nothing good has ever come from you. But I guess because he was trolling those dirty goons he should be given a fucking medal instead of a ban, right? Another glorious sysop in action. --||||||||||||||||||||||||| 03:29, 28 May 2011 (BST)

TBH having ignored the whole conversation that the users posts were put on, I saw those difs and assumed he was a Goon being sarcastic. Not sure why you're making such a big deal out of this since one could turn around and say that the goon op is going on a vandetta against a non-goon troll which is certainly what it now looks like (thanks for bringing the non-important aspect of the accounts allegiance to my attention). Not that it would have mattered anyways since the only people who seem to think goon bias exists is the goons themselves. -- ϑ^anceϑ^anceℜ^evolution 03:42, 28 May 2011 (BST)

So you wouldn't have done anything to an account that was created to do nothing but shit up, say, the DHPD talk page? Somehow I doubt that. And I wouldn't say it's a bias against us so much as you being a fucking worthless sysop but there's nothing new there. --||||||||||||||||||||||||| 03:48, 28 May 2011 (BST)

That is a really, really dumb question, because the answer would of course be, if they don't commit vandalism (Note again that flaming isn't vandalism) of course I wouldn't do anything to them. TBH Don't know why you used DHPD as a valid example because I have no affiliation with them and beyond the knowledge they were mass zergers who lied to kevan about it, and had a bad sysop associated with them I don't really have any feelings towards them whatsoever. If you used my own group as an example, my response would be to wipe their quotes, or take them to arbies, as is what is done with most cases of harassment or consistent flaming, and is what should have been done here. Not go on a butthurt renegade attack, use IP tools to inspect their background with a comb, then ban them anyway for 24 hours so they can't defend themselves, when people don't agree with my case. -- ϑ^anceϑ^anceℜ^evolution 07:07, 28 May 2011 (BST)

Having watched the drama fest, it is quite entertaining, I would say Rev is in the clear. DDR, you tried to make a point about talk page arguments. I think we can both agree that there is a difference between a disagreement and creating an account solely to troll a group, for the sake of common sense that need not explained but I will slightly. The account was created and then it's only contribs were flaming on The Dead's page(yes those 6 edits). No attempt to make a normal user page, signature(Aside from one poking at the SA forums) or anything mildly constructive points to that account only being there to flame. Which means it is not needed on this wiki. Lastly you said yourself those quotes Rev provided are justification it's not just how it's been handled in the past. Had America relied solely on past precedents we'd still have segregation and probably slavery and surely to God this wiki is a tad more flexible than a country..        04:06, 28 May 2011 (BST)

Yeah no, we don't ban Goons for doing it. As such we shouldn't be banning users doing it to Goons. Common sense really. --Karek^{maps 2.0?!} 04:10, 28 May 2011 (BST)

There is probably a few goon accounts that could use removing as well. I'm not denying that fact. At least a short ban to tell them to remove the stick they all seem to have stuck up their butt       04:10, 28 May 2011 (BST)

Yes, well. If we were doing this a few years back good users like Laughing Man, Riseabove or DCC would have been perma'd, hell there were sysops trying to even without it. Yesterdays trolls tend to become tomorrows involved users at least some of the time.--Karek^{maps 2.0?!} 04:14, 28 May 2011 (BST)

I was gonna add a side note that I'd only have supported a short ban(at most 24 hours) and that a perma-ban would have been going too far but the edit conflict killed that and I didn't get around to adding it back in.       04:19, 28 May 2011 (BST)

Still don't think you understand. Trolling/Flaming is not vandalism. It is NOT vandalism. Someone who does not commit vandalism does NOT get banned. And using this as an example to real-world politics doesn't really fit IMO. -- ϑ^anceϑ^anceℜ^evolution 07:07, 28 May 2011 (BST)

By the way, Mazu, just so you understand how wrong you are, the SCOTUS overturned segregation (and most notably the ban on inter-racial marriage in Virginia) by relying on the precedent of the constitution. Pl0x not be talking about what you don't understand.--Yonnua Koponen ^{T G P} ^^^ 18:43, 28 May 2011 (BST)

Notice when they ended segregation they over turned the previous decision of Plessy vs Ferguson, an earlier court case that established "Separate but equal".. Hence going against the precedent at the time. And wouldn't the most notable thing be public schooling being desegregated? I suppose that is another debate all together and thus unrelated. In either case I can see the reasoning that Rev shouldn't have acted after another already said to hold off, so I withdraw from a place I had not much business being at anyways(this discussion)..       20:24, 28 May 2011 (BST)

Unjust bans are always treated as a serious offense. You only temporary ban someone with a good cause. Like when there is serious undisputed vandalism going on, like massive page blanking at that very moment. That certainly wasn't the case here, your vandalism/3ER claim was already being disputed by two other sysops, nor were the edits wiki-damaging in anyway. How about when you're up for vandalism next time for whatever reason, I ban you for the duration of the case until it is "sorted out". -- Thadeous Oakley Talk 07:37, 28 May 2011 (BST)

All the various butthurt around here aside. You banned a user on a case you yourself reported. Even after another sysop essentially already ruled on the case as not vandalism because of this wiki's history of accepting that type of behavior from users. Sorry, Revenant, you don't get more say. Especially in a case where you were the one reporting the user(in which case you don't get any say).

That being said I 100% agree with the point you were trying to make and the fact that until you banned him over my objection you weren't in fact breaking any of the wiki's rules, at least not according to what I like to think of as clique rules(read hagnat cases). I suggest that should you want to have that interpretation validated in the future you get it cemented through A/PD and restate my historically consistent insistence that sysops are administrators and tempered judgement calls should be the norm for wiki ruling, spirit over word.

Also, seriously, all of you. Stop it with this ridiculous butt-hurt vendetta crap. It's annoying and the kind of thing that isn't acceptable when ruling on shit. --Karek^{maps 2.0?!} 10:55, 28 May 2011 (BST)

Who's being butt-hurt? Please don't tell me you actually think there's "goon bias" at work here. -- Thadeous Oakley Talk 11:05, 28 May 2011 (BST)

Actually I'm more talking about the Rev biasharassment by certain sysops. I could swear I remember you doing it too but that may just be me falsely associating you with the users that have been associating themselves with you, if that's the case then sorry. --Karek^{maps 2.0?!} 11:20, 28 May 2011 (BST)

I'll say the same things I said to other users like SA or Misanthropy when they claimed I had the same bias against them: I don't hate users, only their actions, and only if their actions are wrong. As long as actions are done in blatant disregard for the long-established way we've dealt with them in the past (with no better reason to disregard them than "this is how I think it should happen" or "this is what wikipedia does") then I'll continue to fight for the established norm (though obviously I'm for whichever way is better as per each situation). The second Rev stops manipulating interpretations of rules to prove his own points (the notion other ops are being called out for bias here is overwhelmingly ironic given some of Rev's latest gems) and stops making renegade calls when he can't accept what the ops rule on as a team, then any apparent animosity between myself and him will magically disappear. Trust me I'd like it to happen more than anyone. -- ϑ^anceϑ^anceℜ^evolution 11:37, 28 May 2011 (BST)

Well let me be clear this issue than. I don't feel any personal bias against Revenant. Having said that, I do think he's being rather stupid here, so yeah, I definitely let him know but not by putting the flamethrower on maximum like some goon, but by arguments. Yeah, I know I have a reputation for heated discussions. I say what I think, just not the type for sugarcoating. That doesn't mean I suddenly resent people involved, and no, there is no hidden agenda at work here. -- Thadeous Oakley Talk 11:46, 28 May 2011 (BST)

As for DDR, who I highly assume you meant by "association", while he's fully capable of defending himself, I'd like to point that if he were so biased than I doubt he would have promoted you and especially Revenant considering he has come to disagree with you both prior to your bids. -- Thadeous Oakley Talk 11:50, 28 May 2011 (BST)

I'm referring to this kind of crap and this crap too. With you it's more of a you need to lose some of the attitude you generally bring to A/VB and such as far as your response to users being escalated. --Karek^{maps 2.0?!} 19:18, 28 May 2011 (BST)

I'll keep it in mind, but I don't really feel there's a problem with my attitude. People act stupid, I call them out on it. Direct yes, but if people take it personal than that's not my issue. -- Thadeous Oakley Talk 20:24, 28 May 2011 (BST)

You're a whiny douche retard who cleary can't handle pissing in a toilet much less process a complex thought who somehow sucked his way into a position that may on times call for both. With so many terrible sysops to choose from you are the worst. Literally the worst. Fuck you and the horse you rode in on who is currently in the possession of EzekielUK. --||||||||||||||||||||||||| 20:54, 28 May 2011 (BST)

FFS Revenant: Both Karek and I told you to hold off, Karek actually said "you can't rule vandalism". Why the fuck would you do this? Misconduct and ban him for the amount of time the user was banned, as per the Aichon precedent, etc. --Yonnua Koponen ^{T G P} ^^^ 12:26, 28 May 2011 (BST)

Which, btw is 24 hours and 15 minutes.--Yonnua Koponen ^{T G P} ^^^ 14:04, 28 May 2011 (BST)

Nah it's only 15 minutes, if it were that long I wouldn't have had to unblock the account. -- ϑ^anceϑ^anceℜ^evolution 14:11, 28 May 2011 (BST)

Oh yeah, i misread the block log and thought it said he'd done it on the 27th. So then, a 15 ban is my ruling.--Yonnua Koponen ^{T G P} ^^^ 14:13, 28 May 2011 (BST)

Recently Concluded Misconduct Cases

There are currently no recently concluded misconduct cases. Check the Archive for older cases