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)

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

Conndraka

Conndraka created a sockpuppet account, User:Wiki Martyr, whose purpose was clearly was troll User:Iscariot -- a user with whom Conndraka has a long history of personal conflicts. The evidence that this was a sockpuppet account was provided in this vandalism case.

I expect a "trusted user" with special administrative powers to know better than to create a sockpuppet account. And to create a sockpuppet whose aim was clearly to troll another user whom they don't get along with is a blatant violation of the trust the wiki community puts in sysops to act at least somewhat professionally and impartially. At the very least, this action calls into question Conndraka's "trusted user" status -- and creates a clear conflict of interest / impartiality issue, considering that part of a sysop's job is to ban sockpuppets. At worst, it falls under the "excessive bullying" clause of the Miscinduct policy. --WanYao 17:19, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Excessive bullying is just that, excessive. No sysop-only action was abused, and Conndraka was already warned. What is the point of this case? --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 17:24, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, J3D did get misconducted for laughing at a sockpuppet made to troll Cyberbob rather than ban it. =/ Conn's cut out the middle man and made one himself. -- Cheese 17:25, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Those are different cases, and J3D was misconducted for different reasons. --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 17:31, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Exactly. J3D's case was about being biased on a ruling and then abusing Check User. His demotion was primarily over the Check User issue. His laughing at the troll account was just what made a few people change their minds about him. It made them realize that maybe he isn't very mature.

Conn has never been considered a "good sysop". Trolling isn't misconductable until it becomes bullying. Not Misconduct.--– Nubis ^NWO 17:33, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Also, way to Forum Shop, Wan. Sometimes it just doesn't help though.--– Nubis ^NWO 17:34, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

bullying? yes. excessive? hardly. This case was dealt in vandalism. If the sysop in question had any history of abusing the community trust, this could be a case worth being discussed. Not misconduct --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{talk mod} 17:28, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

As I explained, Conndraka is a "trusted user" who should know better than to do something which is clearly against the rules of the wiki. Having done so, IMNSHO Conndraka has violated the whole "trusted user" thing... very explicitly. That is why this case is here, and while some of you are implying that this is a "frivolous" case, IMNSHO again, it's one of the few non-frivolous cases to have been posted here in some time. This isn't a case of mere vandalism, to be dealt with by a vandal warning. Conndraka violated all concepts of professionalism, impartiality and -- most importantly -- respect for, and adherence to, the rules of the wiki. I expect sysops not make trolling sockpuppet accounts. I don't think that's a weird, or "frivolous" expectation. --WanYao 17:41, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

So sysops get double warnings or worse that for the same edit would get a single warning? If boxy decided to blank a page, he'd get two warnings, yet if I blanked the same page, I'd get only one? How is that fair? And I'm pretty sure that sysops are supposed to be treated/seen the same as any other user. They are the same thing, both users. --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 17:48, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I feel this went too far... I was under the impression that sockpuppeteering is a fairly serious offence... It's certainly something that a sysop, aka a "trusted user", ought to know better than to do. It was a wilful violation of very clear wiki policy... add to that the fact that it was trolling a user with whom Conn clearly has a personal conflict... and it all falls into a conflict of interest, and becomes a violation of "trusted user" status. That's my position, and I think it's pretty straightforward. However, if the sysops aren't in accord, well, fine, I'm not going to drag this out.... --WanYao 18:03, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree Conn should know better and that type of thing isn't something a sysops should do (or any user). Anyways... lalala. --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 18:07, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Umm exactly where did the account Troll anything? Other than a statement of not being involved in an Arby there is nothing said at all. I beleive this account was banned in error, as the account isn't prohibited and made no comments, nor took any actions that could honestly be considered Trolling. I therefore appeal this ruling to the entire sysop staff and ask that the account be unbanned and the warning struck until such time that said account commits some action that directly or indirectly either vandalizes this wiki or in fact attacks another user. Conndraka^{mod TAZM CFT} 18:17, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Nubis

Ruled on a case that he was part of.

But how is he a part of this case? It was brought by Hagnat. Well, if we look at this edit we see that Nubis adds a link to a preformed case. Then, in both their rulings, Karek and Cheese both reference Nubis' case, however obliquely. This makes Nubis a de facto part of this case and his ruling on it, and swiftly after it gets tied, proves that he knew it was wrong.

You'll notice that he was quite happy to swiftly change the verdict to Vandalism on the page, and add that verdict to the Vandal Data page, but he seemed to 'forget' the required warning on my userpage. Instead four and half hours pass until Cheese comes and issues the warning. The reason is obvious, Nubis was hoping that his contribution to the case would go unnoticed.

If a non-connected sysop wished to support Hagnat and Nubis' baseless case then we wouldn't be here. However ruling on a case you have brought or contributed to is misconduct and has been ruled so previously.

I'm wanting the warning retracted, deleted from Vandal Data and the template on A/VB reverting until a non-connected sysop adds their ruling to the case. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 10:24, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

This, however, would in my book qualify as Misconduct on Nubis' part. He shouldn't have been ruling on the case and was, for all intents and purposes, a co-reporter.--Judge Karke, self-proclaimed Decider of Everything and Ruler of All 12:03, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Get your head out of your ass and think about this. I was not a co-reporter. If anything I was a troll trying to start drama by linking to something that I knew would piss him off. Nothing on my sandbox page HAS ANYTHING to do with this little skirmish on A/SD. Everything on my page is from well before this report. Most of the links on my page are from previous A/M and A/VB cases. You know, linking precedent or history to show that the user knows/has been warned about this before.--– Nubis ^NWO 13:44, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't believe his conspiracy theory but I also don't think it was appropriate for you to rule after your comments and additions before that point. Obviously this case shows that the prevailing opinion is that the action was the correct one for the user but this is kinda like a throwback to an old case for me. It being vandalism is irrelevant to you ruling being in bad form.--Judge Karke, self-proclaimed Decider of Everything and Ruler of All 13:50, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, we've all seen what waiting around for other sysops to get off the fence and make a decision gets us. So, let me get this straight. It's a type of vandalism that he will get away with repeatedly because "punishing" him for being him is wrong and "punishing" him for his actions can be seen as only "punishing" him for being him since he is such a habitual troll? The secret is to be a troll for so long that you are never called out on it! I get it now. That's a great system.--– Nubis ^NWO 14:03, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

This looks like a "soft warning" sort of case... clearly "shittting up admin pages", but a prior soft warning has been the precedent -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 13:10 10 January 2009 (BST)

The reason is obvious, Nubis was hoping that his contribution to the case would go unnoticed.

The reason is obvious if you make shit up. The only thing I did wrong here was not put the Warning on Iscariot's page. Who can blame me since it is a habit not to post on his page. --– Nubis ^NWO 13:44, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Not Misconduct Not enough to warrant an issue. Conndraka^{mod TAZM CFT} 13:34, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Not much of an issue? Maybe not to someone whose position allows them to ignore bans and whose position means they can't actually be removed by the community they are supposed to represent, to other users maybe. If you feel my edit was vandalism, go fucking vote vandalism, don't fucking sit their and attempt to maintain your self deceiving illusion of impartiality. I'll make it easy for you, go here and copy and paste '''Vandalism''' -- ~~~~. What Nubis did was wrong, he voted on a case that the rulings of other sysops had made him part of, hence why we're here, but at least he had the balls to put his fucking signature to it. Go for it, copy and paste and follow the link, how much fucking easier do you need it? At least have the fucking guts to put your name to it, so that when the community finally get's tired of your antics they can accurately trace the stuff you had a hand in. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 02:22, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

lol I'm sorry... I think you have me confused with someone who gives a rats ass about any comment you make regarding me. I have my opinion on the case, I have stated it. And as far as your opinion... it doesn't matter. -snerk- maybe if and when you get off the haterade and crack cocktails I'll evaluate anything you say seriously. Until then lulz Conndraka^{mod TAZM CFT} 02:40, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

What are you scared of Conn? Come on, vote vandalism, you know you want to. There's two routes in this, the Karek route that justifiably rules that there is no case, or there's the Hagnat "Waaaaah, this user iz makin' me luk dum!" route. Pick one. You daren't because you're happy to game the system, not putting your name to a user's vandalism case whilst protecting said sysop guilty of misconduct fro punishment. Playing the system for your own amusement? Yeah, trusted user.... -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 02:46, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your input.--– Nubis ^NWO 02:52, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Can Conn not debate his own points? Or are you attempting to influence this case in the same way you did the vandalism case? -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 03:49, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Nor Misconduct - Iscariot was warned because of their edits to the deletion page (the A/SD -> A/D move fiasco), not because of nubis contribution, which is, in fact, another case that should be ruled on in the future. If anyone find this ruling as a conflict of interest, just ignore it. --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{talk mod} 16:20, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

sorry to sound like iscariot, but that's playing fast and loose with the rules, hagnat. if it's a conflict of interest then it's misconduct. or it's not misconduct -- period -- and you get on with life. but you don't just ignore vandalism rulings, for frell sake. --WanYao 05:25, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

It's contagious. For "frell"'s sake, Hag is saying that he is voting Not Misconduct but understands if other sysops attending won't count his vote. He's not saying he really thinks there is a conflict of interest. And he isn't saying anything is wrong with the VB ruling. He's just saying that he isn't going to get pissy if his actual vote isn't considered in the final tally of this case.

The only reason this hasn't been archived is that I am not sure if boxy was voting Misconduct or not. --– Nubis ^NWO 13:33, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Not Misconduct - Nubis has not yet brought his own case to VB and the case in question was placed by Hagnat. To my knowledge, Nubis <> Hagnat so he was not involved with the case. -- Cheese 17:32, 15 January 2009 (UTC)