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

User:Boxy

For removing the majority of the groups from the historical page as seen here. The groups in question are old, historical groups that shaped the early history of the game and have disbanded. Iscariot, being the noob that he is, requested them to be taken down because instead of reading on what makes them historical he did what every idiot does; he ignored it. Boxy, being the worst sysop on the wiki, listened to Iscariot and removed the groups because "they weren't voted on", despite the historical group category existing prior to the rule forcing a vote. These groups were historical for years before someone decided to make it a vote worthy category, meaning anyone who remembered the groups is gone and the majority of the people are new, and thus never heard of them. This is as retarded as someone saying ancient history should be removed from textbooks because no one was around to witness it. Boxy, abused his powers as a sysop to remove groups from historical status. --Sonny Corleone ^{DORIS I jizzed in my pants pr0n} 04:53, 9 June 2009 (BST)

I was only following the policy that you voted on, Sonny. As it says on the policy page, "all groups currently within the category will remain as long as they have a historical significance section added within a month of the passing of this policy", and I was fairly generous in my interpretation of a historical section too. As long as I could find something on the page referring to their place in UD history, I left them there -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 06:19 9 June 2009 (BST)

You can't add a historical section to a group when its locked and when the group leaders are no longer active. You know as well as anyone we cannot get the original group members back. You ignored logic and what is right for the wiki. --Sonny Corleone ^{DORIS I jizzed in my pants pr0n} 06:21, 9 June 2009 (BST)

You ignored logic and what is right for the wiki. . This sums it up nicely. Misconduct. There is no way that Iscariot's list can be considered good faith and acting on obvious vandalism is Misconduct. You edited a protected page and that is a sysop ability.--– Nubis ^NWO 13:18, 9 June 2009 (BST)

I will be rolling back all of those edits pending the outcome of this misconduct case. These groups were considered Historical before there was even a Historical policy for the most part, and it is ridiculous that you caved to Iscariots BS and edited locked group pages that existed before he even started playing UD. I have been accused of poor judgment in the past but these edits deserve an explicative that "bullshit" just doesn't cover. You should have at the very least contacted other sysops before pulling this. Conndraka^{mod TAZM CFT} 06:58, 9 June 2009 (BST)

to add, most of the groups in question were originally determined to be Historical in 2006 and protected by Max. The remaining were done in Jan or June of '08. The decisions were made then and once made should not have been undone...this is History we are talking about. And The Undying Scourge Not Historical? Come on. Conndraka^{mod TAZM CFT} 07:16, 9 June 2009 (BST)

If you were aware of such things (which you usually aren't), you could have made your opinion clear on the case at hand, it was open for 2 days and still discussed after the action, i believe D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 07:20, 9 June 2009 (BST)

i am not surprised that iscariot asked for these groups to be removed, but i am rather surprised that boxy agreed with it. Some of the groups removed are older than myself and many other old dinosaurs of this wiki, and you think newbies like iscariot have what it takes to decide their historical importance ? yeah right --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{[talk] [wcdz]} 16:54, 9 June 2009 (BST)

User:Nubis

Again, for being premature. More accurately, he deleted his misconduct case which had barely even started. That amounts to ruling on his own case. --Midianian^{¦T¦DS¦SP¦} 16:54, 4 June 2009 (BST)

To be fair, Jed really hsould have actually brought something to his case.--Mr. Angel, Help needed? 16:59, 4 June 2009 (BST)

Oh, hey J3D and Midianian making cases against me while Iscariot is gone. Color me surprised. --– Nubis ^NWO 17:05, 4 June 2009 (BST)

Still, it should never be up to the accused to decide whether a case is valid or not. --Midianian^{¦T¦DS¦SP¦} 17:15, 4 June 2009 (BST)

Issuing a ban on such an obviously contentious case when only 3 or 4 Sysops have voted was obviously not a wise move, Iscariot already has a persecution complex so why feed it? Still, I am not convinced that I would call it misconduct per say... just bloody minded and stupid. However, I gotta say that deleting any ongoing misconduct case out of personal feeling is going to far, especially when it is a case against him. At the very least it looks like Vandalism (I am allowed to bold that one aren't I?) and I am pretty sure Sysops have been misconducted for ruling their own cases in the past which would pretty much count here too. --Honestmistake 19:48, 4 June 2009 (BST)

Indeed. Except he issued a ban when no one had voted. He ruled solely on the case. D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 13:54, 5 June 2009 (BST)

Well, SA had voted and I had voted and the guidelines do say that a sysop can post and ban on the same person as long as a case is posted, but hey, you keep holding on to that NO ONE RULED YET! line. --– Nubis ^NWO 10:14, 6 June 2009 (BST)

You both voted for the permaban, you tard. Perhaps you should have just prematurely perma'd him instead, if you feel so inclined to stand by that mentality. D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 07:24, 7 June 2009 (BST)

Misconduct - he was indeed ruling on his own case. He marked his edit as minor, and in the edit summary said "m (→Misconduct Cases Currently Under Consideration - Case has no links, does not involve a sysop power)". He ruled that the case didn't involve sysop powers, and removed it from the page, something that only sysops are authorised to finalise. I also note that DDR had already added the relevant links to the case at the time of removal, even if J3D hadn't in the first post -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 01:50 5 June 2009 (BST)

So, my removing a non-sysop case then MADE it a sysop case? (my edits are by default minor, boxy. It's a setting in my Prefs. because of all the unmerging/category editing I did. But that is such! a good justification.) --– Nubis ^NWO 10:14, 6 June 2009 (BST)

Misconduct - As the Box. Even if you don't like the case, just wait until it's been dealt with rather than trying to pre-empt a final ruling. Which you have done in the past if I recall correctly. -- Cheese 08:32, 5 June 2009 (BST)

You mean against the other bullshit cases that J3D and them made against me because of a vendetta? Yes, there is clearly no pattern here. --– Nubis ^NWO 10:14, 6 June 2009 (BST)

Misconduct Knowing Nubis I don't believe he broke the line of information keeping on purpose, but I think he did break procedure enough to qualify as minor misconduct. Conndraka^{mod TAZM CFT} 01:16, 6 June 2009 (BST)

Misconduct--Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 17:23, 6 June 2009 (BST)

User:Nubis

For being premature.--xoxo 09:24, 4 June 2009 (BST)

You were premature. --Cyberbob 09:31, 4 June 2009 (BST)

That's what she said. D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 10:04, 4 June 2009 (BST)

When I saw this I considered just pasting my original misconduct case up, but I've decided to keep it simple for now. I will not be ruling in this case because of my involvement, as well as the suspicious circumstances in which J3D brought the case up instead of me (which while circumstantial, doesn't change how it looks).

Whilst Nubis has the right to rule singly on a case, there is no reason why he had to do so on this case specifically, especially given its importance. He deliberately acted before any other sysop could even log on to add their opinions onto the VB case. The only reason Nubis would do this would be to prohibit Iscariot from defending his own permaban vote. I think the latter part is bad faith and incredibly poor form, especially at the point where Nubis rushes to gather the sysops onto the VB page to vote for Iscariot's permaban, straight after his banning. D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 10:04, 4 June 2009 (BST)

Accusation and evidence in link form, please. --Midianian^{¦T¦DS¦SP¦} 10:29, 4 June 2009 (BST)

From the below Misconduct case:

While now, all the sysops have gone onto the case and expressed their opinions on the permaban vote, which means they have read the case to some extent, and not ruled. For that, you may say that you ruling is no longer out of line. But you banned Iscariot based off your one ruling. You waited one day, no sysops had even had the chance to log on and read it, let alone rule, besides you and myself. We had a large enough discussion between just You, SA and myself, in that very case, and all were waiting for the other sysops to give their views on the permaban, but you cut it all short in order to rule vandalism, ban Iscariot so he could not contribute to the case, and push the vote onto the other sysops, before they had even read the case and gather and understanding for what is going on.

Because of the above, I had deemed the abnormally fast ruling on the A/VB case a bad-faith attempt at prohibiting Iscariot from being able to defend his perma-ban vote, and for that I am disheartened that I am here instead of Nubis, but that isn't relevant at this point... I could have easily beat the system by ruling Not Vandalism, but I didn't because I really thought Nubis was better than this.

D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 10:55, 4 June 2009 (BST)

I guess it might be an interesting note that Nubis only notified the sysops who he thought would vote yes (and eventually did). His wording suggested it was a regulatory Sysop vote to permaban a user [1][2], though despite this, he didn't notify anyone who he thought would say no, by the looks of it. I know it is circumstantial at best, but I found it worth noting because in my opinion it further questions Nubis' good faith. D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 10:55, 4 June 2009 (BST)

I noticed that too. But by the wording of his comment posted on SA's page "Please inform the sysop team that a vote has been called on perma-banning a user." it looks like he may have expected SA to inform the rest of us. However, the fact that he informed Conn (someone who was quite likely to vote perma) and not anyone else is quite suspicious. Linkthewindow  Talk  12:14, 4 June 2009 (BST)

However, assuming good faith, Nubis may have had to run, or had to leave his computer suddenly (that said, it's Boxy, not Conn, that's on top of the list of sysops. Linkthewindow  Talk  12:19, 4 June 2009 (BST)

Or how about I knew that Conn is one of the few sysops that actually has the fucking balls to make a decision one way or the other instead of whine and say something retarded like "put it up to a community vote"? Conn and I are not friends for all I know he could vote No just to piss me off. --– Nubis ^NWO 17:03, 4 June 2009 (BST)

Leave it here until it's sorted out Nubis.--Mr. Angel, Help needed? 16:42, 4 June 2009 (BST)

Hey, Nubis didn't have any links of my actions in my case below, either. Maybe I should just delete mine too! D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 16:45, 4 June 2009 (BST)

This is not a misconduct case because there is no sysop power involved. I did have a link in your case, DDR. I also had a reason why I brought the case up. And not to mention, it's something you did wrong. But please, amuse me more with your quips and one liners. Also, please continue to add insightful contributions to this case That's what she said. User:DanceDanceRevolution 10:04, 4 June 2009 (BST) as it helps add to the air that this is indeed a legitimate case and not just something petty. --– Nubis ^NWO 17:03, 4 June 2009 (BST)

Sorry, maybe I should have added poor sarcasm. I have no interest in establishing petty relationships of a vicious nature, Nubis. This is actually a product of my whole-hearted belief that what you did was wrong, and I added as much as I could to this case to make it as if I brought it forward myself. And regardless of the case, you have no right to just trash it, especially since this case is exactly related to that tendancy of yours. D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 17:12, 4 June 2009 (BST)

But you didn't make this case. And you didn't treat it seriously at all. And even your comment above is snide and sarcastic, but I love how you are trying to take the high road and say you don't want to be "petty". You are just a little troll that did some good deeds and got Ops. You are not this fair and unbiased moderator that you want to come across as. The only one this wiki has had was Karek. --– Nubis ^NWO 10:21, 6 June 2009 (BST)

Perhaps you and your paranoia complex is telling you that I am the new troll on the block, joining the J3D and Mid 'vendetta' in order to unfairly persecute you, but in truth it is so much more simple- I consider your behavior in the last week to be out of line. I never claimed to be unbiased in any way. I just explained that this is not personal, Nubis, I don't think you are a bad sysop but I can't agree with these actions- as you didn't when you put me to misconduct. D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 07:41, 7 June 2009 (BST)

Not Misconduct On this case I still have reasonable belief that Nubis was acting in reasonable good faith here. Maybe not the way he should have acted but not quite close enough for me to vote misconduct. Conndraka^{mod TAZM CFT} 01:12, 6 June 2009 (BST)

Not Misconduct--Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 17:23, 6 June 2009 (BST)

User:DanceDanceRevolution

Overturning a rightful banning. The case was voted Vandalism. It is 2 to 1 with a DDR vote being one for Vandalism. The punishment is a week ban. Just because there is another issue on the table for consideration does not mean that he gets out of his punishment for this vandalism case. --– Nubis ^NWO 18:32, 3 June 2009 (BST)

It's actually 2-2. You & SA are voting for Vandalism, DDR & Boxy are voting for Not Vandalism. In the case of a tie the generally accepted practice has always been to come down on the Not X side. --Cyberbob 18:42, 3 June 2009 (BST)

Check back, DDR actually did vote vandalism, however he also expressed that he considers the vandal case to be open. Nubis considered the vandal case closed and struck a ban, DDR didn't agree with the case being closed. Correct me if I´m wrong, this is all a bit confusing. I am also not quite sure when a case is considered closed.--Thadeous Oakley, Europeans, don't forget to VOTE! 18:51, 3 June 2009 (BST)

Whoops, missed that. You don't see too many rulings embedded in the middle of textwalls like that.

3-1 in favour of vandalism then. My other comment is wrong but I still wouldn't count it as misconduct because it's an extremely contentious case and not all of the sysops have voted. The permaban vote is firmly in opposition of SA's proposal, which seems to have more or less taken over the whole section. If the sysops who have voted in there were to also vote on the actual case brought by Karek then I would say it would be acceptable for a final ruling to be made either way, but not until then. --Cyberbob 19:00, 3 June 2009 (BST)

Wait, so that's summed up as no to the perma, but yes the vandalism (1 week) case? --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 19:05, 3 June 2009 (BST)

At the moment yes, but like I said there are still a heap of sysops left to vote on the vandalism case. Given that the permaban discussion has p much dominated the whole thing I think it's likely that people have just not realised that there's a difference. --Cyberbob 19:14, 3 June 2009 (BST)

I made it clear, so they should realize. I probably did it in an incorrect manner, but I'll leave that you guys. See what I did?--Thadeous Oakley, Europeans, don't forget to VOTE! 19:34, 3 June 2009 (BST)

Misconducted for insisting a very important case stay open? I could have easily misused my power and voted Not Vandalism merely to have Iscariot unbanned, Nubis. You know well that your ban was preemptive considering the circumstances.

While now, all the sysops have gone onto the case and expressed their opinions on the permaban vote, which means they have read the case to some extent, and not ruled. For that, you may say that you ruling is no longer out of line. But you banned Iscariot based off your one ruling. You waited one day, no sysops had even had the chance to log on and read it, let alone rule, besides you and myself. We had a large enough discussion between just You, SA and myself, in that very case, and all were waiting for the other sysops to give their views on the permaban, but you cut it all short in order to rule vandalism, ban Iscariot so he could not contribute to the case, and push the vote onto the other sysops, before they had even read the case and gather and understanding for what is going on. D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 01:42, 4 June 2009 (BST)

Because of the above, I had deemed the abnormally fast ruling on the A/VB case a bad-faith attempt at prohibiting Iscariot from being able to defend his perma-ban vote, and for that I am disheartened that I am here instead of Nubis, but that isn't relevant at this point... I could have easily beat the system by ruling Not Vandalism, but I didn't because I really thought Nubis was better than this. D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 01:42, 4 June 2009 (BST)

I may also add that in the light of the permaban vote turning belly-up, I see it as a direct result of Nubis pushing this case before he allowed for any direct discussion. Whilst I am admittedly surprised that the sysops ruled as quickly as they did, I was expecting Nubis would realise his onus of convincing the other sysops that Iscariot needed his ban, but instead he responded with petty sarcasm to the only opposition before ridding the other sysops the chance to offer discussion. I therefore conclude to you, Nubis, that the only chances this permaban vote had of succeeding were subsequently destroyed by your hasty actions and pushing of the vote, rather the discussion. Congratulations, Nubis, you have won yourself another, more rightfully bitter Iscariot. D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 01:42, 4 June 2009 (BST)

Not misconduct - this case was obviously going to be controversial, and it's entirely reasonable to put off something permanent like a ban (you can't go back in time and take back a ban if it's found to be in error like you can a warning) until a significant number of sysops have had a chance to contribute. The person you should be reporting for misconduct is the sysop who started a permban vote when it was clear that the month escalation hadn't been reached yet, as specifically required by policy.
Oh, wait... -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 03:55 4 June 2009 (BST)

Not Misconduct, and I'm glad Boxy is still mostly worried about his image.--Mr. Angel, Help needed? 04:01, 4 June 2009 (BST)

in b4 boxy attack. Thank you for your input.--Mr. Angel, Help needed? 04:03, 4 June 2009 (BST)

Ironic :) -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 04:29 4 June 2009 (BST)

This reminds me of the time my s'opship was cruely taken away in the aftermath of NYE...--xoxo 09:23, 4 June 2009 (BST)

hahaha, no. This has literally nothing in common with your case. --Cyberbob 09:33, 4 June 2009 (BST)

I meant the part where nubis/boxy (it was one of them...) pushed something through quickly when no one was paying that much attention...--xoxo 07:32, 6 June 2009 (BST)

God hope not. D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 09:38, 4 June 2009 (BST)

Not Misconduct--Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 17:23, 6 June 2009 (BST)