UDWiki:Administration/Misconduct: Difference between revisions

From The Urban Dead Wiki
Jump to navigationJump to search
 
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.


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 [[UDWiki:Administration/Misconduct/Archive|Archive]].
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 [[UDWiki:Administration/Misconduct/Archive|Archive]].


==Administrative Abilities==
==Administrative Abilities==
Line 32: Line 32:
[[Example page|Sysop]] seems to have deleted [[Example page|Bad Page]], but I can't find it in the Archives of either the Deletion or Speedy Deletion pages. The [[Special:Log|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 -- [[Example page|Reporter]] 13:42, 28 Oct 2005 (BST)
[[Example page|Sysop]] seems to have deleted [[Example page|Bad Page]], but I can't find it in the Archives of either the Deletion or Speedy Deletion pages. The [[Special:Log|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 -- [[Example page|Reporter]] 13:42, 28 Oct 2005 (BST)
:The deletion was asked through my talk page. I give my [[Example page|Talk page]] as proof of this. -- [[Example page|Sysop]] 13:42, 28 Oct 2005 (BST)
:The deletion was asked through my talk page. I give my [[Example page|Talk page]] as proof of this. -- [[Example page|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. -- [[Example page|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? -- [[Example page|Sysop2]] 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? -- [[Example page|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... [[Example page|Sysop]] 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... [[Example page|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. -- [[Example page|Sysop2]] 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. -- [[Example page|Sysop2]] 13:42, 28 Oct 2005 (BST)


==Misconduct Cases Currently Under Consideration==
== Before Reporting Misconduct ==
<!--When there are no cases currently under consideration, place " ''There are no cases currently under consideration.'' " below. -->
Due to a the growing number of Non-Misconduct cases popping up on this page the [[Sysops|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.
===[[User:Karek|Karek]]===
Protected [[A/VB]] and [[A/SD]] in violation of [[UDWiki:Administration/Guidelines#Protection_of_Pages|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 [[Special:Log&page=UDWiki:Administration/Vandal_Banning|Here]] and [[Special:Log&page=UDWiki:Administration/Speedy_Deletions|Here]] for A/VB and A/SD respectively. Ive just unfucked them so the pages are usable again. --[[User:Grim_s|The Grimch]] <sup>[[Project UnWelcome|U!]] [[Project Evil|E!]]</sup> 19:02, 20 August 2008 (BST)
:Those links don't seem to work. Try these: [http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php?title=Special:Log&page=UDWiki:Administration/Speedy_Deletions ein] und [http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php?title=Special:Log&page=UDWiki:Administration/Vandal_Banning zwei]. -- {{User:Krazy_Monkey/sig}} 19:22, 20 August 2008 (BST)


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.


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). --<small>[[User:Karek#K|Karek]]<sup><font face="Monotype Corsiva">[[User:Karek/ProjDev/OmegaMap|maps?!]]</font></sup></small> 19:33, 20 August 2008 (BST)
==Misconduct Cases Currently Under Consideration==
: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. --[[User:Grim_s|The Grimch]] <sup>[[Project UnWelcome|U!]] [[Project Evil|E!]]</sup> 19:43, 20 August 2008 (BST)
''There are no cases under consideration.''
::What does that mean in English? O_o -- {{User:Krazy_Monkey/sig}} 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. --[[User:Grim_s|The Grimch]] <sup>[[Project UnWelcome|U!]] [[Project Evil|E!]]</sup> 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.{{User:Techercizer/Sig}} 20:30, 20 August 2008 (BST)
:::::I got the bit you said, I was wondering about what Karek said. -- {{User:Krazy_Monkey/sig}} 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){{User:Techercizer/Sig}} 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. --[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 23:10, 20 August 2008 (BST)
 
Before I do anything, what was the purpose of protecting those pages? --{{User:A Helpful Little Gnome/Sig}} 23:50, 20 August 2008 (BST)
:It's to do with [[UDWiki:Administration/Discussion#Revisions|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 :-/ <small>-- [[User:Boxy|<span style="color: Red">boxy</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Boxy|<span style="color: Red">talk</span>]] • [[UDWiki:Image Categorisation|i]]</sup> 00:04 21 August 2008 (BST)</small>
::You could always make a fake [<span class="stealthexternallink">[http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php?title=UDWiki:Administration/Vandal_Banning/Archive/2008_08&action=edit&section=1 edit]</span>] to fix that problem. Should be no different. --{{User:A Helpful Little Gnome/Sig}} 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...{{User:Techercizer/Sig}} 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? --{{User:A Helpful Little Gnome/Sig}} 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'''.  --{{User:Nubis/sig}} 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?{{User:Techercizer/Sig}} 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.  --{{User:Nubis/sig}} 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.{{User:Techercizer/Sig}} 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. --{{User:Nubis/sig}} 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.--{{User:J3D/ciggy}} 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.--{{User:Nubis/sig}} 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...--{{User:J3D/ciggy}} 01:43, 21 August 2008 (BST)
:''Comment removed'' I had the wrong user in mind. Sorry. I get you confused with someone else. --{{User:Nubis/sig}} 02:37, 21 August 2008 (BST)
::heh. jedaz? i get confused there sometimes too...--{{User:J3D/ciggy}} 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''? --[[User:Midianian|Midianian]]<small><sup>&#124;[[User talk:Midianian|T]]&#124;[[Talk:Suggestions|T:S]]&#124;[[:Category:Recently Closed Suggestions|C:RCS]]&#124;</sup></small> 12:50, 21 August 2008 (BST)
==Concluded Misconduct Cases==
:I'm going to give you a warning about shitting up admin pages as a reminder. You just go ahead and "move on" KTHXBI.--{{User:Nubis/sig}} 13:48, 21 August 2008 (BST)
Check the [[UDWiki:Administration/Misconduct/Archive|Archive]] for concluded Misconduct cases.
::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, {{wikipedia|hanged, drawn and quartered}} from one case that was ruled Misconduct. --[[User:Midianian|Midianian]]<small><sup>&#124;[[User talk:Midianian|T]]&#124;[[Talk:Suggestions|T:S]]&#124;[[:Category:Recently Closed Suggestions|C:RCS]]&#124;</sup></small> 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.{{User:Techercizer/Sig}} 16:01, 21 August 2008 (BST)

Latest revision as of 04:55, 30 April 2018

Administration Services

Sysop List (Check) | Guidelines | Policies (Discussion) | Promotions (Bureaucrat) | Re-Evaluations

Deletions (Scheduling) | Speedy Deletions | Undeletions | Vandal Banning (Bots) | Vandal Data (De-Escalations)

Protections (Scheduling) | Move Requests | Arbitration | Misconduct | Demotions | Discussion | Sysop Archives

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.