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:Boxy

This case had one vote of vandalism and one of not vandalism, other sysops had commented but not ruled. Karek, as the bringer of the case, cannot make a ruling. Yet boxy decided to warn me about it anyway, which A/VD confirms. Given the borderline nature of the case (evident in a split decision) and the fact that Nubis ruled based on a "larger case", boxy was premature in issuing a warning.--xoxo 06:24, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Nubis + boxy = 2 -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 06:28 21 December 2008 (BST)

Boxy ruled vandalism, not misconduct learn to count, it tends to actually make or break your case. --Karek^maps?! 06:29, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Counting? Does that include Hagnat intentionally misrepresenting the result of the Nubis case? -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 06:34, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Boxy didn't rule. He said warning after he'd ruled.--xoxo 08:30, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

And to clarify bu ruled i mean warned on my talk page and entered me in A/VD.--xoxo 08:31, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Not Misconduct - Nubis + Boxy ruling vandalism = 2, Hagnat ruling not vandalism = 1. 2 > 1 so therefore, he was within his right to warn you. -- Cheese 14:40, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

It was worth a try ;) --xoxo 14:41, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Ooh, is that an admission of a frivolous case I see there? --HAHAHA DISREGARD THAT, I SUCK COCKS 14:44, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

try reading 4 lines up, check the histories. then come back.--xoxo 14:46, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Nothing you've written above changes the fact that you just admitted you knew that Boxy's actions were within the rules. --HAHAHA DISREGARD THAT, I SUCK COCKS 14:49, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

*sigh*, please tell me you're playing stupid.--xoxo 14:51, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

No, but something tells me you are. This case is flawed, and your comment shows that you knew it. --HAHAHA DISREGARD THAT, I SUCK COCKS 14:53, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Not Misconduct hmmmm....Precedent..... Conndraka^{mod TAZM CFT} 18:02, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

User:Hagnat

The Administration Guidelines serve to regulate the conduct of sysops using their powers as trusted users. They contain many clauses designed to prevent sysops having to take sides in disagreements. These clauses are clear and leave no room for interpretation.

One such clause is:

In the event of protection, a system operator is expected to protect the page in whatever state the page was in at the time the request is reviewed, regardless of its original state. - Emphasis from the original document

In the procedure to protect, S.O.S. Hagnat ignored this clause and intentionally chose a side, in this case reverting to a contentious edit.ot

Not only is this in breach of Administration Guidelines regarding the protection of pages, but the procedures regarding Arbitration are clear. They are that the contentious edit should be removed for the duration of the case, Hagnat's actions go contrary to this procedure as well.

Hagnat stated during his most recent promotion bid that he would no longer 'mod' the wiki, he was clearly lying. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 02:33, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

He has continued this behaviour by unilaterally deciding the content of the page whilst it is under protection. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 02:36, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

First of all, i should've protected the page as in the moment of the request, and so i did. I was following due process in there since you were the one who started the revert war, not boxy, therefore its HIS edit that is valid for the duration of the arbitration case, rather than yours. Since the revert war begun when boxy removed the entire section, i dont see how i acted in bad faith here. And where the fuck did i said that i werent gonna mod the wiki ? Putting words in my mount, iscariot ? --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{talk mod} 02:46, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Now I know you have problems with English, but reviewed is clear, it does not mean when the requested was entered, it's when the the protecting sysop looks at the A/P page. But good luck in trying to rewrite the language I know better than you to make yourself right here. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 02:56, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

spirit of the law against law by the letter again ? I like how you managed to attack me, find a weak spot in my argument, and ignore all else. Here is the thing again: You are the one who started the revert war, if the page should be kept in any status before an arbie it should be the status prior the conflicting situation. --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{talk mod} 03:01, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Making up more 'guidelines' like the ones you wrote and unilaterally put in Admin namespace without community consensus again? You can spirit or letter as much as you like, those guidelines are there to prevent the image of sysops being partisan, something you breach with your every edit. The guideline is there to protect sysops, you breached it intentionally for personal preference. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 03:05, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Actually, Hagnat, the disputed edit gets reverted for the course of a case, not the edit disputing the edit. It should be reverted to the version with the signatures.--Karek^maps?! 06:09, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

I know this, you know this, why doesn't another member of the sysop team know this? Because he makes up his rules as he goes along. Still waiting for those signatures to be put back in.... -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 06:33, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

It's now on the right diff.--Karek^maps?! 06:39, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

And all I had to do is write a couple of thousand words and bring a misconduct case to get something that should have been done automatically? Must be a slow day on the wiki.... -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 06:47, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Also, you have the wrong version. Would you like me to point you to a copy of the correct one? -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 07:27, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Indeed I don't have time right now to dig through all of them to see where it started, I just reverted to the last undo action hagnat did with votes otherwise I'll have to copy and past the page code from an older version.--Karek^maps?! 08:35, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

The last contibution by The Hierophant was the last addition to the page. The correct reversion will include everything in the code including his post. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 08:39, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

It is now there.--Karek^maps?! 08:45, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Ta muchly. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 08:48, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

User:J3D

Does it get any more obviously biased? --HAHAHA DISREGARD THAT, I SUCK COCKS 17:58, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Bob.... get a life, I made a joke in good faith which may or may not be worth a warning and J3D has made a flippant comment on the resulting A/VB case showing his clear bias and personal opinion. Opinion yes, which arguably means that apparently it should be on the talk page rather than the main... still, show me exactly where he has bolded the words "Not Misconduct" or are you suggesting that an opinion is now a ruling and does not need to be bolded to count as such? --Honestmistake 18:06, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

"Not Misconduct"? I think you think you really did get a promotion. Your case would be VANDALISM since (as far as I know) you are still a regular user. This case would be misconduct. But if this is misconduct then Hagnat and I would be on here, too. (not that that's anything new).--– Nubis ^NWO 22:56, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

I didn't bring this case for the ruling, you self-important twat. I brought it for the "Surely there's some clause that says i can rule based on my opinion of the person that brought the case up?" line that J3D felt he needed to include. --HAHAHA DISREGARD THAT, I SUCK COCKS 02:25, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

So because you didn't like his commentary (that didn't include a ruling by the way) you decided that is enough for a Misconduct case? Have you been taking lessons from Iscariot? I don't particularly like J3D and his clan, but sinking to this is a pathetic low even for you. Expressing his opinion isn't a sysop ability and we're not mods and ...radda radda radda. --– Nubis ^NWO 04:15, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

He pretty clearly was declaring it not vandalism. Just because he didn't bold it doesn't change his intent. --HAHAHA DISREGARD THAT, I SUCK COCKS 05:21, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Nubis, he started off the sentence with a otherwise unqualified refusal. Unless the english language escapes me there's not much else he could have meant with "Nup." There's not exactly 50 ways to interpret that. We've had this dispute before with most of the sysops saying the following; 'Bold a ruling, does not make'.--Karek^maps?! 07:04, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Not misconduct, actually, not a case at all. You used to know when people were joking bob. --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{talk mod} 18:41, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Coming from anyone else I would have chalked it up as a joke. J3D is a special case as you well know. --HAHAHA DISREGARD THAT, I SUCK COCKS 02:25, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Not misconduct and to avoid a misconduct case of my own I'll leave it at that. _{Happy Now Cheese? ;)} Conndraka^{mod TAZM CFT} 19:49, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Misconduct, the first word makes it a ruling, the rest makes it misconduct for the reason Cyberbob points out._{Placed here because Conn's prophecy was right this tiem, we disagree.}--Karek^maps?! 09:59, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

If this goes down as misconduct then I'm dragging Hagnat here for ruling on this case. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 21:04, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Haha Karek, ok, I await butt-buddy boxys ruling. I wonder what it will be...--CyberRead240 21:22, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

"Surely there's some clause that says i can rule based on my opinion of the person". Not misconduct though, just more shitting up of admin pages with his usual drama, which should be handled on A/VB, if anywhere -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 00:06 19 December 2008 (BST)

It makes me smile everytime when i see Eric Bessette in there...--xoxo 00:36, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for ruling based on your personal dislike for me rather than the merits of the case. You're behaving every bit as badly as J3D. --HAHAHA DISREGARD THAT, I SUCK COCKS 04:54, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

I was actually referring to my opinion of J3D (ironic, wat). But if you want to take offense anyway, feel free -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 06:48 19 December 2008 (BST)

whups, apologies --HAHAHA DISREGARD THAT, I SUCK COCKS 06:51, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Be sure to catch Sysops behaving badly 2, out this summer.--xoxo 05:20, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Pardon me while I stitch up my sides. --HAHAHA DISREGARD THAT, I SUCK COCKS 05:21, 19 December 2008 (UTC)