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

Hagnat

For banning Sexylegsread for a week over his signature and editing it without giving him the full week to change it. While the week ban was the proper escalation not giving him the week to change it (if it even breaks the "formatting clause") is wrong. The sig does link to the user page and isn't any more annoying than Hag's fake not signed comment signature.

Sexylegsread should be given the week to change it and asked to shorten the length of it so it is less likely to wrap around to the next row, but he shouldn't be banned from having that sig. Hagnat was wrong to bring the case and carry out the punishment when it is at a ban without input from other sysops since it isn't active vandalism. Just the fact that you did that in the first place is misconduct. --– Nubis ^NWO 23:40, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, technically, 42 minutes... --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 23:58, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

The fact that he did it in the first place is wrong though.--– Nubis ^NWO 00:01, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Aye, but he did at least unban him. --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 00:03, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

What part of the policy is not clear? "The handle portion of your signature must link to your user page or one its subpages so that it is easy for readers to learn more about the person behind the signature." Having the link buried in a sea spam letters is in clear violation of "so it is easy to learn more about the person behind the signature".

Therefore, hagnat interpreted the violation correctly. He did not, however, interpret the procedure or the "sentence" correctly. The procedure is very clear: SLR had a week to fix it after being warned before getting banned. --WanYao 04:45, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

I was banned for 10 hours, not 42 minutes. Hagnat didn't get the IP block. Also, it wasn't buried in a sea of spam, it was every sixth "d". Equating to 1/6 of my sig. Also, the policy is not good enough. Also, hagnat had no right to edit my sig in the first place, regardless of if I was being a troll or not. Also, Hagnat had no right to block me in the first place, as he didnt go through the proper avenues, he just banned me. He should have put it up on A/VB and waited for another sysop. So, 1. Hagnat edited my userspace without needing to (my sig, violation of policy or not, did not break any page or the wiki therefore did not require editing from anyone other than myself) 2. Hagnat banned me without using the proper avenues and 3. Hagnat didn't give me the week that the policy entails. Seems like 3 counts of misconduct to me.--CyberRead240 05:08, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Read has been pushing the sig policy deliberately. The week to change the sig is there to give people who are off line a chance to change their sig (especially sigs that arn't templated). There is nothing in the policy disallowing someone else from editing templated sigs (because they are accessible to editing by anyone) to bring them in line with policy, especially sigs that are all over the wiki, like Read's. Hagnat brought it into line, and gave Read a polite (non-escalation) warning about making the user link obvious, and yet Read went right back and did it again. That deserves the next escalation, which is a week ban, which does not require approval by other sysop, although it does need reporting on A/VB so that it can be reviewed, which Hagnat did. Not misconduct -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 05:30 1 February 2009 (BST)

You are pathetic. You would have answered this whole situation a lot differently if this wasn't me, only a fool would think otherwise.--CyberRead240 08:27, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

No, hagnat didn't have business editing it. It's basic page ownership. It's a subpage of his userpage. The sig policy even talks about it in the beginning. You'll also note that the policy mentions editing someone else's sig only when it seriously impairs the operation of the wiki. The way the Punishment section is written, you're not supposed to edit it even if it is deemed vandalism, it's the owner's job to do that after he's unbanned. --Midianian^|T|DS|C:RCS| 10:48, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

No, Midianian, this is not "basic page ownership", because this doesn't just affect the user's own page, but every page he's ever signed on, including heaps of other user's owned pages (talk pages). This sig is included hundreds of times across all parts of the wiki. Read had been approached about his sig not complying with the policy, and fobbed it off. Hagnat made an edit to it to make it comply with the policy, and left a polite message about it. Read replaced the with another that was equally as hard to determine who was signing (you need to mouseover all the spam d's until you find one that links to the actual userpage). He even admits that he's deliberately exploiting what he sees as a loophole. If you want to argue that Hagnat had no right to edit the sig, then vandal banning is the place to go, but given that his edit was clearly a good faith attempt to ensure that the sig complied with the sig policy, it's not vandalism, and thus the rollback to an equally confusing sig by Read clearly shows his bad faith attempt at creating yet more admin drama (pretty much all he contributes to this wiki any more) -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 12:01 1 February 2009 (BST)

No, really, read the policy. It is his page. The fact that it's included on many, many pages limits his freedom with it somewhat but it's still his page, and it wasn't breaking the wiki.

Hagnat didn't just edit it to comply with the policy. If he'd been worried about reconizability, he could've just added a link to his userpage at the beginning instead of completely reseting the sig. I didn't report him to A/VB because the edit obviously wasn't bad faith. However, it's quite possible for edits to be good faith/Not Vandalism while still being inappropriate and revertable.

I'm not disputing that Read was wrong with his sig, but hagnat was also wrong. Two wrongs don't make a right. hagnat shouldn't have edited it unless it was breaking the wiki, impersonation or something like that, and definitely shouldn't have banned him for reverting an edit hagnat shouldn't have done in the first place. Hagnat's actions were excessive and premature. --Midianian^|T|DS|C:RCS| 13:13, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

You admit that he's obviously wrong with his sig (for the second time in a couple of days), but want to punish well intentioned wiki users for putting it right -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 13:30 1 February 2009 (BST)

No, not obviously wrong. It's not against the letter of the policy, only the spirit. And no, I don't want to punish a well intentioned user for putting it right. I want him punished for banning someone who reverted an inappropriate edit. --Midianian^|T|DS|C:RCS| 13:59, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

To be honest, we don't need to wikilawyer over the exact wording of the signature policy. The sig was likely to overlap into a section line (hence breaking formatting) and made it difficult to discern who the original user was. It was a blatant attempt to exploit a loophole it the wiki. If read hadn't known that it was breaking the rules then this would have a case but he knew that the signature was in violation of the signature policies yet still reverted it back to its original form. This makes it bad-faith and thus means Hagnat's actions were Not Misconduct.--The General ^{T Sys U! P! F!} 13:33, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

He didn't revert it back to it's original form. He tried to bring it more in-line with the sig policies "guidelines". So he failed, according to everyone, he still tried. Hagnat should have let him know that it was still against the rules, not bringing out the hammer.--Suicidal Angel - Help needed? 14:45, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

It comes down to whether or not Hagnat abused his sysop privileges by banning me, and not following proper wiki conduct. He banned me, without complying to the policy. I didn't revert it back to the one hagnat had a problem with, I removed a bunch of the links. If that isn't good enough, hagnat doesn't have the right to ban me, he just has the right to say "no, thats not good enough again", and perhaps revert the edit. Banning was ridiculous and over the top, and an abuse of sysop powers. Regardless of his "intentions" as boxy claims, abusing your power as a system operator is Misconduct. This is a clear cut case, as he violated policy. --CyberRead240 14:55, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

You were attempting to alter it just enough that it passed through the letter rules while still being in breach of the spirit. Hagnat should have got consensus before handing out a week ban but he did not "need" to do so before handing out the ban.--The General ^{T Sys U! P! F!} 16:42, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

So, if a user puts an image into their sig that's too big, if they just make it smaller that'd still be vandalism, because although they're conforming to the policy, they're just trying to alter it enough to get it passed through? Huh. Didn't know that. If a sig is against policy, of course they're going to be altering it just enough to get in. If they wanted an entirely different sig, they wouldn't have used the rules breaking one from the start (even if they didn't know it wasn't against the rules from the start). Sexy should have still gotten a week to bring it within policy. Other users get it, and sometimes those other users are given more than that week chance to fix it before they get warned or banned for it.--Suicidal Angel - Help needed? 16:55, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

If they had an image with was 50px tall by 50px wide and they change it to be 14px tall but still 50 px wide then that may get around the clause saying that they may not have a sig "higher then 14 pixels high" but it would still be vandalism because it would still be in bad faith. The only purpose of the sig is to annoy everyone (Why else have multiple links to the same thing?). If he reduced the sig to have only one of each link then he could claim that he was genuinely attempting to keep the sig while complying with the policy. The only contention point is that he should have a week to fix it but even that is still attempting to abuse the rules. Why should everyone have to put up with his signature for a week before it can be changed when he blatantly knows that it is against policy?--The General ^{T Sys U! P! F!} 17:12, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

So now redundant links are against policy? When did that happen? There is nothing, I repeat nothing anywhere that says he can't have multiple links that point to the same pages.

Using a loophole doesn't automatically mean its bad faith. So he wants his signature like that? Fine, let him, it doesn't break the policy, especially not now. User link, and easily findable? Check. Does it break any of the existing rules, or the "spirit of the rules"? No. It has no image. Does it impersonate? No. Is it malicious? Again, no. It may be annoying, but there are plenty of other sigs I find more annoying than his.--Suicidal Angel - Help needed? 17:21, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

In my defense, the only crime i admit to be guilty here is failling to correctly unban slr, as i forgot to remove the ip ban. It seems you got that ip ban automatically after you tried to create a new account. Anyway, my bad, and i accept any form of punishment for that. About the sig policy, boxy has already shown that slr is gaming the sig policy, and that he knew it for a long time already. Boxy already said that the one week period for a user to change a sig after being asked by the administration team exists only to allow offline users to have the time to change. I *did* gave a chance for slr to work with the policy and warned him that any edits of that kind would be seen as vandalism, yet he went ahead to revert his sig into something similar to what it look like before, but now with "1/6 of the links to his user page" (but the external links make that amount to 1/12 of his sig space). His actions were, therefore, vandalism. I gave him the benefict of the doubt and after issuing his warning i unbanned him, in order to allow other sysops to give their input on this case (and with 4 sysops saying its against the rules against two, i guess i was right). Resting my defense, i'd like to point out that i am going on vacation in a few hours (yay, summer vacation \õ/) and that i wont be online for the next two weeks, so you might postpone any form of punishment for when i come back. Até mais. --—The preceding signed comment was added by Hagnat (talk • contribs) at 18:11, 1 February 2009 (UTC)