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)

It looks like the page that was deleted did not belong to the requesting user, so you were in no position to delete it on sight. -- Reporter 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

Cyberbob

Ok, so I'm gone for a week and a bit and the place descends into madness? =/ Anyway, all this bullshit about the box on VB is a blatant abuse of power and the fact that it's been implemented without a policy is just using the sysop status as an excuse to push your own agenda on the community. This has been ruled Misconduct before and definitely should be in this case. Unilaterally changing it despite everyone else telling you not to is fucking retarded.

We VB people who blatantly spam the main page in a disruptive way, not for the odd comment. Seriously get a grip, this power trip ends right here, right now. -- Cheese 21:38, 16 July 2009 (BST)

Cyberbob warned people for posting on A/VB main page in a constructive fashion, yet he constantly edits the page for trolling. He soft warned several users when such warnings are only given to repeat offenders (as in, users who post non-constructive comments). His ruling of vandalism against me for the creation of the bots pages shows how he has no clue what is actually vandalism (and drawde reporting it as vandalism make one question if he too know what vandalism is). his promotion drew several against "votes" from old timers who were active when cyberbob was a sysop for the first time. To sum it all, Cyberbob is a troll and shouldnt be in a position of power in this community. --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{[talk] [wcdz]} 21:57, 16 July 2009 (BST)

To add a quote from Bob himself that I think anyone ruling on this case should really take into consideration: "I am trying to prevent the precedent from being created where anyone can go bulldozing through pages without asking anyone whether it's a good idea first - yes these things can be reverted easily (usually) but it's far easier for people to make at least a show of going through the proper channels in the first place.". His hypocrisy is outstanding.--SirArgo ^Talk 22:05, 16 July 2009 (BST)

Not MisconductAn attempt to actually improve the Wiki and how its done? How original...I might agree on some of Hagnats points but not on this one. Conndraka^{mod TAZM CFT} 22:19, 16 July 2009 (BST)

This isn't improving the wiki at all. All it does is create drama and spam on VB. Go see the amount of crap that's surfaced in the past few days and then come and repeat that first sentence again. -- Cheese 22:21, 16 July 2009 (BST)

It goes much further than just that. On all counts he is a bully and a first class troll. The fiasco in A/VB is just the most obvious and easily cited example. Cyberbob consistently acts against the best interests of the wiki. He is a bully who abuses his powers: he just hides behind one-worders which are harder to pin down than the long winds of most trolls. And the fact that conndraka -- whose complete lack of impartiality and logic is famous in these parts -- supports him basically proves my point even further... --WanYao 22:34, 16 July 2009 (BST)

I would like to refer you to this edit[1] where Conndraka writes, "its time we start getting a little more professional around here".

Hear, hear!

Now, why don't you put your money where your mouth is and start by getting rid of the single most unprofessional personality on the "team". Or is the blatant contradiction between what you say and what you do just another example of your self-vaunted "objectivity"??? --WanYao 23:16, 16 July 2009 (BST)

Edit conflictedAnd it's not just about whether this was a good change or not. He changed the policy while an open discussion on it was still going (go ahead and check the page, he admits it) and I really think it should have then moved onto policy discussion, since it is policy in essence. But instead he made up his mind, and rewrote part of it in his way without getting any true general consensus on it.--SirArgo ^Talk 22:35, 16 July 2009 (BST)

We need new sysops if you want this case to succeed. I can already see DDR's and SA's comment from a mile away no matter what argument you throw in. Impartiality sure. But yeah, it's time to put Bob to bed. He's been nothing but a troll, and abused his powers for it. --Thadeous Oakley 22:42, 16 July 2009 (BST)

CyberClown has outlived his usefulness as a source of entertainment. Which wouldn't normally bother me except he has gone totally off the edge with his Activist SysOp tendencies, trying to write policy from the bench as it were. His usual tactics of trying to bully any opposition with one-liner trolling, rather than interacting with people directly and honestly, has morphed into this attempt of his to simply ban any non SysOp user who dares to speak up on Admin pages, sparing him even his usual trolling efforts to intimidate users he disagrees with into silence. It's time to take this mad dog down. --

| T | BALLS! | 22:56 16 July 2009(BST)

This shit is exactly why i didn't vouch for bob as a sysop in the first place, it was always going to come down to this type of fiasco.... he has no regard for anyone on this wiki and basically regards it as his personal playground. He has the skills to make an excellent sysop and the maturity to put a 10 year old to shame. I just cannot see why we should accept his shit any more.--Honestmistake 23:01, 16 July 2009 (BST)

You know, it's great that I can finally talk on the main page, because this is misconduct, without being harassed immediately. An another note, it should be noted that Bob posted himself on cases he wasn't involved, like in arbitration. The content of his post was, as always, griefish and trollish.--Thadeous Oakley 23:46, 16 July 2009 (BST)

Oh yeah, in case Bob or someone else tries to nail me with my arbitration ruling: A/M allows community opinion, so I'm free to involve myself. --Thadeous Oakley 23:59, 16 July 2009 (BST)

this page specifically asks for all comment/discussion to be done here and not on talk pages so you should be fine.... I suggest you avoid any argument with SA if he shows up though as it will just make you look like your trying to pick a fight.--Honestmistake 00:05, 17 July 2009 (BST)

More disturbing than unilaterally shoving an undecided policy down everyone's throats is the manner in which bob seems to delight in antagonizing users into conflicts and then bullying them into submission. Of course this is an ultimately futile misconduct case, since the same group of sysops who promoted him in the first place will cover his ass.--_GANG Giles Sednik _CAPD 00:14, 17 July 2009 (BST)

lolling at how excited everyone is OMIGOD SQUEEEEEE --Cyberbob 01:21, 17 July 2009 (BST)

I'd like to thrown this evidence of abuse of his sysop powers. Cyberbob clearly had a conflict of interest about these images, since they were uploaded to "honor" his birthday. The images were not pornographic, and were even classified as humorous earlier by another sysop during a image categorization run. --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{[talk] [wcdz]} 04:20, 17 July 2009 (BST)