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)

I was waiting for this. Interesting that you are trying to say my comment is some sort of policy or precedent when I am saying something you "agree" with but when I say something you don't agree with I am making all sysops untrusted users. Since no one (including yourself) tried to introduce policy to state one way or the other whether or not sysops can vote on their own case it must not bother anyone since they know if it is misconduct the sysop will be outvoted.--– Nubis ^NWO 22:23, 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)

Iscariot, are you really this fucking retarded that you have to report everything as misconduct? I've sat by and watched your shit and put it down as simple stupidity. In all honesty, every time you edit the wiki you ruin it that much more. For the love of all things intelligent, please kill yourself. I'm being totally serious here. You have no way to redeem yourself. You only have the ability to make yourself and everything around you worse. So grab a handful of razor blades and begin swallowing them. God fucking damn it, I hate you and your mother for not aborting you. --Sonny Corleone ^{DORIS MSD pr0n} 21:50, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Now now, lay off him. He's just on a self-destructive path letting the petty frustrations of the wiki get to him. He needs to decide if he really wants to be known as the pedantic asshole that cries foul constantly or the useful contributor to developing suggestions that people actually can respect. I personally hope he goes back to DS since no one found dupes and pointed out flaws like he did because of all his experience. (and for the most part he was the least trolly) But he seems dead set on making himself miserable raging against the machine. --– Nubis ^NWO 22:23, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Oh Sonny, everytime you open your mouth, I am astounded at the beauty of your wisdom-filled words. However, I like it when Iscariot threatens to 'misconduct' (he uses the word as if the very accusation is the punishment itself) sysops for anything they do which he doesn't like. It just shows how irrational and useless he is. D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 04:25, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

NOT MISCONDUCT For the love of all thats holy... I dub thee St. Crucifix. Conndraka^{mod TAZM CFT} 02:46, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Not Misconduct - Case Closed--The General ^{T Sys U! P! F!} 12:27, 9 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)

Yes we can, obviously... but only if we know they've been deleted. Unless they're recorded on A/SD, the only way to know about these deletions is for us to stalk the deletions log. And who's got time for that? -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 22:22 8 November 2008 (BST)

I do. --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 22:24, 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)

Luckily enough though Karek it doesn't matter if you do not welcome my contribution. I do not have a "get the sysop" complex and I do not think that these deletions are a serious issue, what I do see as an issue is the lack of consistency in this page. A clear case is made which is obviously misconduct but nothing beyond an acceptence that it is against the rules is done... a few days later the same sysop is here again for the same thing. It really does not matter if the issue is petty, it is against the rules and against them for good reason. If any sysop does not like that he can ask for the rule to be changed and if the rest of the community agree he can change the rules and continue doing it his way. If not he/she is misusing sysop powers to do something that is specifically against the will of the community and that warrants more than a slap on the wrist. You yourself have come to the conclusion that this is misconduct so how am I wrong to ask for clear and meaningful consequences to be attached to clear and meaningful misconduct? I am not clamoring for dismissal from the role and i doubt if the content he deleted was of earthshattering importance (or would even have been noticed if Midinian hadn't reported it) In fact its removal will free up almost as much space as these cases are taking which is obviously a valuable service... maybe we should reward him for not following the very simple procedure! --Honestmistake 17:19, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Then please, what purpose did you comment serve than venting some angry opinion? You added nothing beyond complaining that I said the case feels petty in the process of asking for more from Midianian, which he provided. If your concern is making sure there is some punishment then leave the other junk out of it and work towards that.--Karek^maps?! 19:11, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Firstly my comment wasn't aimed specifically at you... if anything it was motivated more my Hagnats "Meh" Secondly; Angry opinion from anyone in the community at a percieved bias in the sysop team should be taken seriously, my comment spelled out very clearly what i wanted to happen in this case and what should have happened in the previous one too. There are good reasons why the current system exists, drawing up a list of exceptions to the rule might very well include these specific deletions but it would do so at the expense of simplicity and clarity. By all means streamline the system but do not circumvent the rules and complain when you get pulled on it!--Honestmistake 11:08, 10 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)

Because they were scheduled, while unused templates are not? --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 22:23, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Thats... my whole... fricking... POINT! If unused images can be deleted on sight - whose deletion is permenent - why cant unusued templates also be deleted on sight, specially when they can be easily restored (even by normal users in some cases). This is just a stupid law, which you guys are not accepting to change --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{talk mod} 22:39, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Templates that appear to be unused are sometimes used in subst form. Also, read Midianian below. --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 22:44, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

And so do images: images can be linked somewhere else, and the wiki will list them as unusued images unless they are displayed. --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{talk mod} 22:49, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Those shouldn't be deleted. --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 22:51, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Yet, so they incidentally are. This sums all. If people is ok about deleting unused images (even with the know risk of deleting images linked somewhere else), why shouldn't we be able to deleted unused templates ? Irs useless red tape --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{talk mod} 22:56, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Images take lots of space. Deleting unused images frees that space while deleting unused templates only makes them inaccesible. There's little point in deleting templates unless their content is objectionable. --Midianian ^{Big Brother Diary Room: [522,08]} 22:36, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

A image is a worht a thousand words and Disk space == cheap ? Many images hold part of this wiki history. I have some of 'em in my image ark (i'm to lazy to dig the link), but deleting some unused images will mean part of this wiki history is being hurt. For one thing, IMAGES should be the ones which should be gone through A/D, not unused templates. They can be reverted, images not. --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{talk mod} 22:47, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

You're not really making a case why templates should be deleted, you're just pointing out that deleting images shouldn't be done with such little scrutiny. If you're worried about them, make a policy proposal to change that, but don't try to get the templates deleted just as casually as images. --Midianian ^{Big Brother Diary Room: [523,08]} 23:13, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Unused Image Deletion

1. it's a scheduled deletion: an sysop can delete a image listed in the unused images list
2. it's permanent: can only be reverted if a user had the filed deleted and uploads it back to the wiki
3. it's prone to error: images can be listed as unused even if linked somewhere else in the wiki
4. they occupy large space on the wiki: disk space == cheap, and it's not like the wiki will fall short of disk space while they wait to be normally deleted if they are reported in A/SD or other pages.

Unused Templates Deletion

1. it's not permanent: unless there is a history purge, templates can be easily undeleted
2. people subst templates: a notice could be added to the top of such templates, notifying the sysop that the page is being used as a subst template

We trust nubis to delete images, but not templates ? This is nonsense. And Not Misconduct --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{talk mod} 23:46, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Not Misconduct on the Deleting, Misconduct on the failure to report. One could argue (and I wont do it here) that templates fall under that quasi is it a page or isn't it category...I don't beleive the example above applies. Now since I went back and recorded the deletions I don't think any punishment should be significant. Conndraka^{mod TAZM CFT} 03:10, 9 November 2008 (UTC)