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

User:Nubis

This edit.

Nubis votes 'Not Misconduct' on his own misconduct case. Clear conflict of interest. Misconduct as per precedent established in this case concerning sysops voting on similar cases to stealth rule, this isn't even stealthy.

To quote Nubis himself from the precedent establishing case:

Just the fact that he is trying to vote on his own case shows that he clearly does not understand the concepts of "conflict of interest", "impartiality", and "DON'T ABUSE YOUR FUCKING AUTHORITY YOU ARE GIVING EVERY SYSOP A BAD REP.".

That says everything in my opinion. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 21:19, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Not misconduct - nubis can say whatever he wants in his case. Unless the rest of the sysop agrees with his ruling (through inaction or verbal agreement) his words means nothing. And any sysop with half a mind will know not to count his ruling in the event of vote. --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{talk mod} 21:23, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Not Misconduct - Please refrain from reporting cases which are petty because you don't like a user or group of users. Paranoia has it's point but some of this stuff exceeds that by miles.--Karek^maps?! 21:30, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Not Misconduct - As above. -- Cheese 21:32, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

User:Nubis

Deleted a bunch of pages (unused templates) without first putting them on A/SD, which is required even for sysops. This time he didn't even record them on A/SD. None of these pages qualified as scheduled deletions. --Midianian ^{Big Brother Diary Room: [516,07]} 16:58, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Not Misconduct - i am in your unused templates, deleting them. Feh. I fully approve nubis actions, and welcome a move for a wiki with less red tape on the hands of the sysop team. --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{talk mod} 17:20, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

You know what? So would I, if it were done with the community's consent and not as a unilateral decision. --Midianian ^{Big Brother Diary Room: [521,07]} 21:33, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Conndraka has recorded the pages in question on A/SD. --Midianian ^{Big Brother Diary Room: [521,07]} 21:33, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

It's interesting now that Grim is gone and this group of sysops doesn't stalk users, but instead "cleans up" the wiki that the misconduct cases are all about red tape bullshit. It's not even about something that is serious like banning people or warning them unjustly. It's just about posting something on a page. But I didn't and yet somehow you knew that those actions were committed and by whom. Hmmmmm.

I'm cleaning up the wiki for christ's sake. None of these pages were in use. None of these pages were less than 2 months old. None of these pages were even useful. They were shitty templates made on some half assed impulse. The last time they were touched was by me (in almost every case) to add a category and sometimes instructions. They are clearly crit 10s on SD and if any of them were posted on Undeletions it would be restored.

No one ever gave me a good answer for why things that meet an SD criteria can't be deleted "speedily" by the sysop that found it. Boxy's answer of posting it "even if it's just for a minute" doesn't work because the same actions would take place if it wasn't posted. It is either deleted or undeleted. Not Misconduct just trying to do some actual work around here. --– Nubis ^NWO 17:55, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

We don't have to give you a "good reason", we give you policy, that you are supposed to conform to. Also isn't voting on your own misconduct case misconduct in itself? -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 18:07, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

What about my reason that without it being added to the A/SD page, no one even knows they've been done, unless they see them on RC. None of the other sysops can check to ensure that they really are crap templates, and not just templates that someone uses to subst into a page, or are used occasionally. You've made mistakes before in scheduled deleting stuff that others would have left before, and if you keep doing this, others will follow suit, and will make more mistakes that the community needs to be able to see happen on A/SD.

You are willfully ignoring the rules in order to try to change policy, fully supported by Hagnat, of course -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 21:44 7 November 2008 (BST)

Yes we can, it's a matter of click "View deleted revisions".--The General ^{T Sys U! P! F!} 15:03, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Misconduct - You didn't even add the deletions to A/SD. I'm not one to be a rules freak but this is getting ridiculous. Either you make a suggestion on A/D/S or you suggest policy change. The reason why sysops must use A/SD in the first place, even when processing their own requests is to reduce the amount of mistakes and for an easy way to track deletions made. Sometimes you need a second opinion. --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 18:44, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

I think if you want to get this case beyond a feeling of a generally petty case(although I don't know your reasons it just feels petty) you might need to show a reasonable dispute(usage, intent, purpose, etc.) to any of the deletions, in which case they will be undeleted immediately and I, for one, would be glad to vote misconduct. Right now though, I'm just not seeing it. --Karek^maps?! 18:47, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

No, I don't have a specific objection to any of the individual templates being deleted. You know why? Because I have absolutely no idea what-so-ever as to what they contained. Neither does any other regular user unless the were familiar with them beforehand. We don't have that nice link at the top when looking at a deleted page that shows the page as it was.

SD criteria do not mean something should be deleted directly. They mean that something may be deleted if no one objects. Directly deleting the pages removes the users' chance to do that. If Nubis wants to delete unused templates on sight, he should consult the community on it. The templates aren't going to go anywhere meanwhile. If the community agrees, he can go trigger-happy on them, but until then, he's going to land himself here.

And why should I even have a personal stake at any of the deletions? If I see someone breaking the rules who has full knowledge that he's doing so, of course I report them. Regardless of whether they're a regular vandal or a sysop. Regardless of whether I'm directly involved or not. --Midianian ^{Big Brother Diary Room: [523,07]} 23:25, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

And that is different from posting an SD how? I could band together with Nubis, he could nominate a bunch of articles and I could delete them immediately; same result, just more work. If you want to know what was contained in the article, just drop one of the sysops a line and we can give you the content of a page.--The General ^{T Sys U! P! F!} 14:21, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough. Misconduct - there was content which means review of purpose isn't possible after the fact.--Karek^maps?! 21:07, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Another case which is almost a carbon copy of the example case and yet again sysops are ruling it not misconduct because it is petty??? Change the rules or at least change the damn example... or better yet stop breaking the rules. I mean for hells sake how hard is it to keep a record of your actions?--Honestmistake 12:57, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

I have to say it. Stop it, you're just making my point for me with you're get the sysops attitude. It's not worth fighting for unless it's worth fighting for and unlike Midianian you've obviously decided it's not worth putting any effort beyond accusing abuse for the sake of railing against the man. You contribution is very unwelcomed.--Karek^maps?! 21:07, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Misconduct - The red tape is there for a reason. If you want to cut it permanently, we have established processes for that. Either get it scheduled, take it to policy discussion or just follow the rules. It's not the first time you've done it either. -- Cheese 14:43, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Why nobody complained when Nubis deleted zounds of unused images ? Fact is: why people are more willing to keep the status quo of having to report pages a sysop can delete, when they agree with the current deletion schedule of unused images ? Images CAN NOT be undeleted, while templates can. If someone is substing the template its even easier for a user to rebuild the template, but for a image to be restored only if someone have it on their computer. Several images got deleted, but they were linked. Its stupid to request a sysop to report his deletion actions of PAGES, since anyone unhappy with its decision can ask it to be undeleted. Its even stupier NOT TO request a sysop for permission to remove an image, since they can't be restored. Nubis just did his job. --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{talk mod} 21:50, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

User:Nubis

Deleted a bunch of pages without first putting them on A/SD, which is required even for sysops. He recorded them on A/SD after he had deleted them. Unless I am mistaken, none of these pages qualified as scheduled deletions. --Midianian^|T|DS|C:RCS| 14:09, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

The same logs also show that he undeleted several of them after boxy pointed out that they had a purpose. Again without going though the appropriate pages, which (again) even sysops must use. --Midianian^|T|DS|C:RCS| 23:49, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

It amuses me that only now everyone's starting to catch on to the wide array of borderline misconduct/misconduct that has been committed on the wiki in the last few days in relation to the October 08 A/D affair, as it will henceforth be known.--xoxo 00:12, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

No it won't. --HAHAHA DISREGARD THAT, I SUCK COCKS 02:30, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

:( --xoxo 02:31, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Not misconduct - Maybe a slap on the wrists, but I think that Boxy didn't start a misconduct case for a reason. And yeah, he fucked up by deleting the PQN pages, but he restored them. And it's not like he should get his powers removed because he deletes redirects avoiding bear-o-crazy, amirite.--Thari ^{TжFedCom is BFI!} 07:48, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

not rly, rules is rules tbh--CyberRead240 07:54, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

is dat y u voted keep on some of dem usar redirects despiet dem bein against teh rules? lolol --HAHAHA DISREGARD THAT, I SUCK COCKS 07:56, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

no, *cough*--CyberRead240 07:57, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

thx fer admittin ur rong by havin to resort to insutls insted of rebbutan lolol --HAHAHA DISREGARD THAT, I SUCK COCKS 07:59, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Your welcome :)--CyberRead240 08:02, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Since when are they against the rules? --Midianian^|T|DS|C:RCS| 08:47, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Since always. Read up on SD Criterion 9. --HAHAHA DISREGARD THAT, I SUCK COCKS 09:18, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Just because a page qualifies for SD doesn't mean the page is against the rules. --Midianian^|T|DS|C:RCS| 11:22, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Given that the SD criteria more or less are the rules that dictate which pages are not allowed... yes, yes it does. --HAHAHA DISREGARD THAT, I SUCK COCKS 11:30, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Those "rules" as you put it are for a page being deleted via A/SD. If the page gets a keep vote for any reason it goes to A/D where (surprise surprise) it goes through A/D rules, aka 2 weeks and majority delete votes. --xoxo 11:33, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

By deleting the pages himself, he's circumventing the democratic process. He's denying the users the right to vote on them. This is especially bad as it's much harder to get a page undeleted than to have it kept on Deletions, as Undeletions are purely sysop decisions. --Midianian^|T|DS|C:RCS| 08:47, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Isn't it odd how this isn't misconduct when other sysops vote on it, yet the spirit of the process and the example at the top of the page which is identical rules it as misconduct. Odd that.... -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 10:11, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Misconduct is the most flawed process on the wiki by far. It should be a community vote, it's not perfect but it's better than the existing system. --xoxo 10:15, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't think I speak for the rest of the sysop group, but I don't think that the suffocating bureaucracy around the deletion of pages is necessary. So I'm not going to witch hunt another sysop for that. And keep in mind that just one sysop voted on this matter yet, there's still plenty time for most of the group to come and yell misconduct all over the place.--Thari ^{TжFedCom is BFI!} 10:57, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

This isn't the place to make policy, it's the place to enforce it. Your opinion of whether or not it should be punished should not be entering into your vote. You should be objectively considering whether or not the action taken is the incorrect conduct in regards to sysop powers. You response shows that you know you should vote misconduct yet you do not change your vote. This is exactly why sysops are no longer considered trusted users by the community at large. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 11:02, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Exactly. If you think there's something wrong with the policy, you shouldn't just ignore it, you should try to change it. --Midianian^|T|DS|C:RCS| 11:20, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Change the example thing then. The example for the page is about following (arguably needless) bureaucracy to the letter. If it's about general bad faith sysopship (ala Grim perhaps?) then the page should make that clear. --xoxo 10:59, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

But, don't you both agree that if a user, sysop or not, does not like the rules in place on a wiki, it is a case of tough luck? If they want them to be changed, they should submit a policy for discussion and work on it from there. If I have to abide by petty rules as a user, then so does a Sysop. The rules are there to be followed, rather than ignoring them, the Sysop should be proactive, and seek change, rather than just ignoring the rules. It creates a sense of, "I am a big bad sysop and I can do whatever I want", which is something we should avoid if we want the community to work together.--CyberRead240 11:02, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Not Misconduct And don't get me started on why Misconduct has to be insulated a little from popularity votes. Its the same reason why governmental positions in the US are self policing as well. It would allow Popular sysops to get away with murder and unpopular sysops to get sacrificed to the wiki-gods for sneezing on his own keyboard. And before you bring it up.. Grim got nailed for legitimate reasons wether you agree with them or not. Conndraka^{mod TAZM CFT} 11:15, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm against popularity votes too, but i think sysop popularity votes are more problematic because there's a you scratch my back i'll scratch yours attitude. Whereas at least open community voting allows everyone to have a say and people are less biased. I mean every sysop is intrinsically going to be biased so giving them the power to vote on something like this, which is clear cut misconduct is not a good idea. I agree with you that there's no point in giving this misconduct, what's it achieve? Nothing. But that's a problem with the system, the fact is this is misconduct.--xoxo 11:23, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Grims misconduct case was nothing more or less than a witch hunt - led by you Conndraka. The punishment didn't really fit the crime. It was an awful attempt for the rest of the sysop team to get rid of a dissenter. Now, I'll admit Grim had his failings, but he was a good mod here. As for this case, I believe it is misconduct.--Drawde ^{Talk To Me! DORIS Яed Яum Defend Ridleybonk! I know Nothing!} 17:21, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Misconduct - of the most minor kind. If you want to delete these on sight, then a scheduled deletion vote is in order, however I would like to see them being reported on A/SD still (after the event) so that others can check without needing to regularly go through deletion logs. Without a record that shows up on watchlists, it's just too easy for things to slip through un-noticed -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 12:44 29 October 2008 (BST)

Boxy, I fully admit I probably cocked up in this case in the red tape department, but I have a question. If something clearly meets a speedy delete criteria then how is that different from a scheduled deletion? The criteria were written to cause the least impact - that's why defunct groups were removed.

I always took the A/SD as a way for regular users to post things that need to be deleted and since they met the criteria they should be done right away. But if things that meet the speedy crits are able to be voted on then by extension everything that is to be deleted should be voted on and that defeats the purpose of SD or scheduling. It would seem that since images are impossible to restore and pages are easily restored that pages should have a "schedule" rather than images. But we don't do that. (TBH that would be a nightmare listing all the old images for deletion)

And are we saying that pages that are created for sock puppets are somehow different than crit 11 (non-existen user pages)? Are sock puppets users, too? It seems like since they can't vote they aren't users. I'm just curious about the reasoning for keeping those kinds of pages.--– Nubis ^NWO 18:18, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

The difference is that scheduled deleteable pages should only be pages where there can be no debate about the worthlessness of a page. Unused redirects created by sysop page moves, for example. The page has been moved, all links repaired, no conceivable need to keep the redirect that was automatically created. However many of the SD criteria need to be interpreted correctly, things like duplicate pages (crit 1), off-topic (crit 2), deletion workaround (crit 6), unused template (crit 10) and missed sub-page (crit 13) all need to be evaluated on their individual merits, regardless of whether they meet the set requirements. Sometimes duplication serves a purpose, off-topic is hard to define, past deleted pages can be recreated with different content, some templates are purely "subst:" templates and some sub-pages are of value even after the main one is gone. Therefore, SD eligible pages should be placed in the queue, even if it's a sysop that discovers them, to give the community a chance (even if it's only a few minutes) to voice their concerns with a page being deleted. Scheduled deletions should be reserved for pages that have no worth whatsoever, and don't require judgment calls. That's why I was totally against "pornography" being added to the scheduled deletions list. This wiki isn't the place for pornography, and I would delete obvious examples of it on sight, as bad faith, vandalism, but it doesn't belong in scheduled deletions due to being a judgment call, and because borderline cases can be described as porn to avoid misconduct charges. I've never been happy with the scheduled deletion of images, but they take just so much space... I don't often delete them, and if I do, I try to save the best of them by putting them in an image archive. It's not perfect -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 15:11 1 November 2008 (BST)

I only have 1 question, and it's for Bob. Was User:A Bothan Spy your account or an account someone else set up to screw with you. That's the only one that is even an issue with the PQN undeletes and the fact that all the other pages were Non-users in the user namespace.--Karek^maps?! 17:53, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

It was another account set up to try and screw with me; the tool in question tried to get me VB'd for "impersonation" (as that was my sig at the time). Nobody bought it, thankfully. --HAHAHA DISREGARD THAT, I SUCK COCKS 00:02, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, then that makes my vote simple. Not Misconduct, no harm was done in the removal of the one page that could be considered at issue. The rest are non-users and this one was an impersonation account, administrative maintenance applies.--Karek^maps?! 04:31, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Misconduct - To the extent that it was a violation of the current (and flawed IMHO) rules. However, I don't think he deserves anything more than a clap on the wrist. 1) He was acting with the aim of improving the wiki and 2) He corrected his mistake after it was pointed out. An alteration to the deletions policy is definitely in order.....--The General ^{T Sys U! P! F!} 14:28, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Ruling

3-2 Not misconduct -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 10:41 6 November 2008 (BST)