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

His actions on the #Nubis case. He knew of the mistake and purposely refused to correct it. --Karek^maps?! 21:06, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

umm woah dude. How about giving me a chance here fella, Damn. My statements were based off of the escalations as posted on the vandal data and I wasn't going to go a researching them until the initial question of the ban length was figured out. Nubis hasn't even responded to the case yet. Conndraka^{mod TAZM CFT} 21:10, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

and another thing...It would be one thing If I point blank refused to do or undue something, but I hadn't (and to be honest still haven't worked through) all the details of the below case. Conndraka^{mod TAZM CFT} 21:14, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but Bullshit. I took one read of the case and instantly gathered the following key pieces of information: 1) Nubis banned Iscariot in concordance with a 3:2 ruling on A/VB. 2) Iscariot's last escalation was on the 30th of January and consisted of a 24 hour ban. 3) This case was brought more than a month later and Iscariot had made more than 250 edits and as such qualified for a de-escalation. 4) Nubis banned him for a week rather than 48 hours which should have been the next escalation if Nubis hadn't noticed the de-escalation. The first 3 are ok and not grounds for misconduct, the last is. Simple as that. -- Cheese 21:20, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

So your defense is you ruled without actually reading the case? I'm not sure how that doesn't actually seem worse. --Karek^maps?! 21:21, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Cheese, 3 doesn't apply - see Iscariot quote below. And if it was supposed to be 48 hours based on what was showing then I did make an honest mistake. Not Misconduct. There was no malicious intent, but just a mistake. It happens. --– Nubis ^NWO 22:24, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm not seeing it. He either knew there was a mistake and went out of his way to not correct it or he didn't read the case summary and ruled anyway in which case he was ruling based on the assumption that you were right to ban Iscariot for however long regardless of the actual merit. Either one is misconduct. --Karek^maps?! 22:43, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Nubis

On the 11th of March Nubis banned Iscariot in accordance with a 3 to 2 Vandalism decision on A/VB. However, Nubis failed to check whether Iscariot deserved a de-escalation. Iscariot was last banned on the 30th of January and the case he was banned for this time was brought on March 5th (34 days later). He had also accumulated more than 250 edits by that time. Not only that, but Nubis jumped from a 24 hour ban directly to a 1 week ban, skipping a 48 hour ban that should have been between them. Even if this was an honest mistake, this is the level of mistake sysops should not make. Iscariot is still banned at the moment and has been so for over 24 hours already. --Midianian^{¦T¦DS¦SP¦} 15:12, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Add in a stated desire (more here and here) to see him banned without following proper escalation proceedings. It shows that this was not an honest mistake. --Johnny Bass 15:42, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Missed de-escalations is not a reason for misconduct:

Warned users can remove one entry of their warning history every one month and 250 edits after their last warning. Remember to ask a sysop to remove them in due time. You are as responsible for keeping track of your history as the sysops are; In case of a sysop wrongly punishing you due to an outdated history, he might not be punished for his actions.

However, the jump to a week ban from a 24 hour is clearly incorrect. :O --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 16:30, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Where does that read? o_O --Midianian^{¦T¦DS¦SP¦} 18:25, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Green box. --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 18:51, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Slap on the Wrist as long as Iscariot's Ban does not exceed 48 hours. Conndraka^{mod TAZM CFT} 17:38, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

You could have unbanned him you know. -- Cheese 18:57, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Not Misconduct for the missing the de-escalation but Misconduct and a nice big link to this for skipping an escalation. We do have a link to VD on the vandal template for a reason. Please remember that, we don't need to give Iscariot any more reasons to think we're plotting against him. I've unbanned him now meaning he's served about 31 hours and 32 minutes, putting him 7 and 32 over a 24 hour ban. -- Cheese 18:55, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Umm Cheeze, you shouldn't have unbanned him yet. Im pretty sure the Majority is looking at 48 Hours as appropriate. Conndraka^{mod TAZM CFT} 19:31, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

He was at his third escalation, he qualified for a de-escalation, yet you think the appropriate action is to just ignore it and give him a fourth escalation. Care to explain why? --Midianian^{¦T¦DS¦SP¦} 19:59, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Based my statement off of Gnome's quote above... Based on various factors I'm going to go with Misconduct with a Punishment of a ban of 7 hours and 32 minutes (or as close as we can get it). Conndraka^{mod TAZM CFT} 21:06, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

I can actually imagine you furiously back-pedalling at the top of a huge hill right now. XD -- Cheese 21:10, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Imagine all you want, But my response actually edit conflicted with Karek's case above and wasn't awware of it until AFTER I had made this statement. Conndraka^{mod TAZM CFT} 21:16, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Misconduct - Midianian is right. --Karek^maps?! 20:23, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

I should clarify before drama comes. Nubis made a mistake, an understandable one since no one deescalates Iscariot for good reason considering last time someone(Nubis) did he made an A/M case because it was a whole day too early. It's misconduct because it was a mistake with a ban and that should always be misconduct regardless of the intent behind it, banning a user for longer than they should actually be is just uncool. --Karek^maps?! 21:24, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

This <--oops, wrong text in link. My bad. That didn't make sense as a reply to Karek. o_O

Iscariot said:

Aww, poor Hagnat, did you not read those wonderful boxes "Warned users can remove one entry of their warning history every one month and 250 edits after their last warning. Remember to ask a sysop to remove them in due time. You are as responsible for keeping track of your history as the sysops are; In case of a sysop wrongly punishing you due to an outdated history, he might not be punished for his actions." I am responsible for my history, not you, not Nubis, Nubis did the wrong thing and that action should be undone. Then it is up to me to decide when I want my warning struck provided the criteria are met, not you, not Nubis. I have decided that I do not want my warning struck at this time. This is my prerogative. How am I meant to 'begone' when you won't allow me to work my way up the escalations tree?

And I just realized that I had accidentally replied in his comment. Surprised he didn't make a VB case for the impersonation. He can't have it both ways. Either he needs to request a de-escalation every time or we can de-escalate him when we notice. The week 48 hour ban should stay according to policy and what seem to be his wishes. --– Nubis ^NWO 22:14, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

And I did honestly miss the 48 hour ban by accident. --– Nubis ^NWO 22:15, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't agree with Hagnat on that. I think that screwing up a ban should always have consequences if just for the reason that it's the one thing that should be treated with the most delicacy as far as admin actions go. Well, with the exception of privacy information but, it's still a big deal and probably should have consequences. --Karek^maps?! 22:39, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

7 hours and 32 minutes of consequences? -- Cheese 22:41, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

General punishment is whatever additional time the person banned served so, I assume, yes. --Karek^maps?! 22:44, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Assuming my subtraction is correct: Iscariot was banned at 13:16 yesterday (the 10th) and I unbanned him at 18:48 today (the 11th). 18:48 - 13:16 = 5 hours and 32 minutes....maybe I can't add up. =/ No idea how I got 7 hours. Either way it is possible to ban for that amount of time as I've tested it on myself for 7,32. Would you be willing to serve a ban of that length Nubis? -- Cheese 22:56, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

First of all, let me rot in peace. Second, you are not disagreeing with me, you are disagreeing with ALL sysops that served since the green box was created and put on A/VB. We are sysops, but we are humans first, and threfore prone to make mistakes. Like i said to iscariot, if a sysop issues a wrong punishment (because vandal data is outdated) and another user points that out, he has the obligation to correct it and if he refuses to then its misconduct. And third, the 24h to a week ban jump is clear misconduct... --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{[talk] [wcdz]} 04:00, 13 March 2009 (UTC)