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 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)

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)

Misconduct Cases Currently Under Consideration

Cheese

Protected a page without going through A/PT.

What makes this especially bad is that Karek did exactly the same thing not long ago, meaning that Cheese should have known the effects.

This is exactly the kind of fuckup that most likely would have been avoided if a request had been lodged in A/PT and another sysop had reviewed it. --Midianian^{|T|T:S|C:RCS|} 19:17, 14 October 2008 (BST)

I didn't actually realise that protecting it would make the edit links disappear for regular folk. I just thought someone had overlooked it, rather than there being a reason for it. Since the page has been accidentally edited a few times now, I thought the best course of action would be to protect it and stick a note on it to let folk know how to add a report. After you posted in Protections, I realised that I'd got it wrong and corrected it. Just proves I need to learn to read. =P -- Cheese 19:34, 14 October 2008 (BST)

No, it proves you should have posted a request and let someone else look at it and point the error out to you, and the whole thing would've been avoided. --Midianian^{|T|T:S|C:RCS|} 19:39, 14 October 2008 (BST)

Are you seriously trying to claim you weren't aware that protecting a page makes it uneditable? Because that is just ridiculous...--xoxo 09:08, 15 October 2008 (BST)

This is a little more complicated than that. The A/VB page doesn't actually have much content on it, it is made up of a header and an inclusion (template like call) of the current VB archive page. Cheese didn't protect the archive page, and assumed (wrongly) that the protection of A/VB would leave the inclusion edit links. Unfortunately, for sysops, everything looks normal because we can edit protected pages, so while Cheese wouldn't have noticed the problem, no one else can edit any of the sections of A/VB. It's happened before. This is the reason that a "fuck the rules" policy, as advocated by many here, is problematic. If you choose to ignore the rules, then you've got to be willing to accept the consequences when you fuck up. I'd like to see Cheese admit that he stuffed up here, and "do penitence", rather than have something forced upon him -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 10:40 15 October 2008 (BST)

What sort of thing do you mean by penitence? -- Cheese 11:11, 15 October 2008 (BST)

If you are willing to submit to a misconduct ruling, just choose what you think is an appropriate outcome from this case. Hopefully the other sysops will agree, and this can be done with -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 11:49 15 October 2008 (BST)

I don't really want him punished either. I just want to avoid things like this altogether, and the easiest way to achieve that is if the sysops make requests on the administration pages when appropriate. The rules are not there to make your life difficult, they're there for a reason. People are in a way blind to their own errors and showing things and discussing them with others are the easiest ways to expose them. --Midianian^{|T|T:S|C:RCS|} 11:16, 15 October 2008 (BST)

Did you try to bring it up with him before coming here? --HAHAHA DISREGARD THAT, I SUCK COCKS 11:28, 15 October 2008 (BST)

No. Even though I don't think he should be punished, I still think it's misconduct and should be handled as such. --Midianian^{|T|T:S|C:RCS|} 12:28, 15 October 2008 (BST)

meh. no harm done, easily fixed. cheese knows better now, so... move along... --People's Commissar Hagnat ^talk 19:38, 14 October 2008 (BST)

It doesn't matter whether or not it did any harm, it was the incorrect and improper thing to do, hence misconduct. - . . <== DDR Approved Editor 09:45, 15 October 2008 (BST)

says the guy who was defending grim?--THE Godfather of Яesensitized, Anime Sucks ^{Yalk | W! U! WMM| CC CPFOAS LOE ZHU | Яezzens} 10:33, 15 October 2008 (BST)

You do realize that Grim's coup did just as little harm and was fixed faster than this? --Midianian^{|T|T:S|C:RCS|} 12:28, 15 October 2008 (BST)

grim's case was a cummulative case, and he only got punished because he was a constant pain in the ass, using his status as a sysop to make his decisions the "right" ones. Cheese, on the other hand, already admited that he dir err but without knowing. Now he knows better, so why continue this (and add to the red tape) ? --People's Commissar Hagnat ^talk 12:56, 15 October 2008 (BST)

Because every new sysops who comes across this problem, and hasn't seen Kareks original mistake, is destined to make the same mistake over and over again if they take it on themselves to "fix the problem" without consultation -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 13:17 15 October 2008 (BST)

So, if it's a problem every new sysop (and some old too) will eventually come about, why punish them for it ? It's a simple mistake, made with good intentions. If cheese (or anyone else) refused to acknowledge the mistake and kept yelling at the users as it was their fault, then yes it would be misconduct. Cheese already admited he didnt knew and was only trying to improve the place. A simple slap in the wrist and call it a day. --People's Commissar Hagnat ^talk 13:43, 15 October 2008 (BST)

CNR. I'm not after a punishment here. Just a change in behaviour that prevents similar errors from happening again. --Midianian^{|T|T:S|C:RCS|} 13:50, 15 October 2008 (BST)

I know you are not after punishment, but there are some users (such as iscariot) who are. --People's Commissar Hagnat ^talk 14:20, 15 October 2008 (BST)

I invite Hagnat to show where in this case I have asked for punishment. Misconduct =/= demotion, lifetime incarceration and the death of your kittens. A prospective sysop assuming the intentions of others when in places like A/VB they should assume good faith? It's more likely than you think. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 14:32, 15 October 2008 (BST)

Hagnat's promotion bid has been up less than a day and he's already trying to subvert the misconduct system in preparation for his own actions. Misconduct has nothing to do with good or bad faith, that would be vandalism. Misconduct is the improper way of doing things using the powers given to trusted users. There is a clear procedure in place, Cheese did not follow it. The reasoning does not matter. I point everyone to the example above this section that shows how this section should work. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 14:06, 15 October 2008 (BST)

Gonna agree with Iscariot here, its clearly misconduct. It might have been a well meaning mistake but it is also very much the improper use of a sysop power. I don't know that a "punishment" is needed but it kind of defeats the purpose of the page if he doesn't get a guilty verdict and a slap on the wrist.--Honestmistake 14:29, 15 October 2008 (BST)

What people are failing to realise is that misconduct does not mean public execution and demotion. It's about highlighting errors, the sysop in question accepting a small inconvenience (say a 24 hour ban) as a way of admitting their mistake, restoring the community trust and demonstrating that they wish to continue in their capacity as a trusted user. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 14:35, 15 October 2008 (BST)

IF it was about "highlighting errors" then it could have been handled with a note on his talk page saying, this isn't how you fix that problem. This is about punishment. Cheese probably didn't know about the real problem locking the page caused because the case brought up against Karek turned into a shitstorm of Grim shouting POLICY POLICY RARRRR with his walls of text. I don't blame Cheese for not getting through all of that to see that the real problem was that protecting the page made links disappear for regular users and that Karek didn't get the chance to figure out if it could be done since he had to deal with this page. (the misconduct case was brought up while Karek was still working on the coding) Since there is no way of knowing the effect of that action without doing it what else could he do? And in the original case even if it had been posted on A/PT it wouldn't have mattered because we didn't know the effect of locking the page in the first place. --– Nubis ^NWO 16:37, 15 October 2008 (BST)

The problem with a Ban in cases like this is that it inconvieniences everyone rather than just Cheese. All it really means is 1 less sysop is able to do whatever sysops do? I think in cases like this a simple record of the fact they have been guilty of incompetence is enough... would be nice if such a record were attatched to their name when Crat promotions come around rather than requiring a trawl through other pages or a good memory--Honestmistake 15:03, 15 October 2008 (BST)

You're confusing Grim's coup (which was just about the coup, and where he was banned for six months and was denied promotion for a year after that) with his misconduct case right before that one (which was about him abusing his sysop status, and where he lost his 'crat status). --Midianian^{|T|T:S|C:RCS|} 13:45, 15 October 2008 (BST)

/facepalm --HAHAHA DISREGARD THAT, I SUCK COCKS 10:25, 15 October 2008 (BST)

Misconduct - Enough already. He did wrong, and it was something where he should have know better, if he (as the next 'crat) had been paying attention to recent misconduct cases he would comprehended Karek's mistake (which he commented on). Please use the protections page in the future, Cheese. I suggest no penalty is warranted -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 14:48 15 October 2008 (BST)

Not Misconduct - This is why nothing changes on this damn wiki without a bloody revolution. It was clear what Cheese was trying to. He wasn't abusing his power, he wasn't overthrowing the establishment, he wasn't even editing anything for selfish gain. There was no intent. Even the common vandals get intent factored into consideration. And this bullshit about "just take the misconduct and go on" has got to stop. We need fresh blood in the sysop positions that don't have the policies shoved so far up their ass that they shit with a time stamp. --– Nubis ^NWO 16:00, 15 October 2008 (BST)

and if you are worried that other sysops will come along and protect the page incorrectly to fix what they think is the problem then put a fucking note on the page not to do that. There's enough text on there that people ignore anyway.--– Nubis ^NWO 16:02, 15 October 2008 (BST)

Intent was factored in to my reaction to this case, as always. But it doesn't change the fact that Cheese caused a problem by ignoring the rules, and a problem that he should have know about too, given that it's happened before only recently. I'm more than willing to ignore petty work arounds, where no one is inconvenienced, but if you want to ignore the rules, you have to accept the consequences if you stuff up -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 16:14 15 October 2008 (BST)

If you feel the "red tape" is too tight, you should know where you can try to loosen it or completely get rid of it. --Midianian^{|T|T:S|C:RCS|} 16:28, 15 October 2008 (BST)

WHOA THERE NELLY! We don't need a huge big drama fest starting over me being an idiot. I accept that I messed up and that I should have paid more attention. I will learn from my mistake and will run all my admin actions through the official pages in future. Promise. -- Cheese 16:19, 15 October 2008 (BST)

User:Grim s

Moved to Archive

Cheese

Moved to archive

User:A Helpful Little Gnome

Moved to archives.

User:Grim_s

Moved to a new archive, seeing as it was too big to go onto grim's existing misconduct archive page -- boxy ^{talk • i} 22:25 10 October 2008 (BST)