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 other than the sysop named in the case 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

Boxy

A/D policy clearly states that if a page has received 3 Speedy Deletion votes and no Keep votes it is to be deleted on the spot. Boxy did not do so based on his personal disagreement with the speedy deletion of the page in question. Warning plz. Cyberbob  Talk  02:42, 9 October 2009 (BST)

Boxy clearly states:

"Delete - group request isn't a speedydelete criteria, and given that group leadership is often less than clear to outside observers, it can't really become one

Given he voted to delete the page in question, I don't see how Cyberbob manages to reach the conclusion that he has a "personal disagreement with the speedy deletion of the page in question". Boxy's disagreement and non-deletion of the page comes from a correct reading of the deletions rules regarding the speedy deletions of pages.

The guidelines for speedy deletions clearly state:

"To be eligible for a Speedy Deletion Request, the page must fall under at least one of the following criteria: "

The votes for speedy deletion did not demonstrate any valid SD criterion. An owning group asking for a page to be deleted is not a current condition for speedy deletion. Although the group is entitled to blank the page in question and request a Crit 1 - no content - speedy deletion, simple ownership of a group page does not qualify.

As there were not three valid speedy deletions votes, this page could not have been speedily deleted by Boxy.

Not misconduct, by virtue of simple reading.

If Cyberbob wants warnings for petty cases perhaps he'll bring his own here? -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 04:36, 9 October 2009 (BST)

lol, u mad? Cyberbob  Talk  04:42, 9 October 2009 (BST)

Oh right, we forgot to delete the page before getting it deleted, doh! --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 05:11, 9 October 2009 (BST)

Either that, or you forgot to get "group requested" voted in as Crit 14 -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 07:15 9 October 2009 (BST)

Frankly, Cyberbob, despite the fact that really, Boxy should've deleted it, there's nothing in the rules sayign that a sysop MUST delete it. He could have chosen not to post there at all, or even to vote keep, if he really did have a vendetta. Just calm down, and don't be so rash when making misconduct cases.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 07:19, 9 October 2009 (BST)

You should probably shut the fuck up. Cyberbob  Talk  07:44, 9 October 2009 (BST)

Not Misconduct - I agree with this. Especially the biased part. The only user in this whole affair that is arguably biased is you, Bob. --DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION-- 09:02, 9 October 2009 (BST)

Please explain how I am biased and what I am biased for/against, thanks in advance Cyberbob  Talk  09:09, 9 October 2009 (BST)

Sigh. Fine. Just look at your votes and comments on the latest three deletion votes. [1], [2], [3]. They not only show personal bias against Iscariot's A/D faildetta, but also, in relation to the very deletion this case is about, demonstrates that you are just being reactionary in relation to Boxy's vote and Iscariot's subsequent keep. To me it also shows you are just trying to prove a point to Boxy regarding your opinion of what he did (read the following conversation from your tantrum on said vote). Your latest behaviour also makes me wonder why you've so suddenly reverted back to what you used to be. I liked the Cyberbob that still tried. --DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION-- 09:30, 9 October 2009 (BST)

So you disagree that Boxy ignored the guideline that stipulates that pages which have received 3 SD votes and no Keep votes are to be deleted then and there? Because not only are your accusations of bias so bad they're kind of funny, you really should be judging the case on its merits. Cyberbob  Talk  10:01, 9 October 2009 (BST)

Upon close inspection, it is clear that South West Alliance/Ruddlebank Information does not meet any of the criteria for speedy deletion. So those "speedy deletes" are really just "deletes". Boxy was right and you're wrong. Just calm down, read the criteria, and don't let iscariot bait you into acting like a turkey again.--_GANG Giles Sednik _CAPD 12:50, 9 October 2009 (BST)

You can shut your fucking mouth too. There is nothing that stipulates that a page with 3 SD votes has to fit one of the criteria, and "group request" is pretty damn close to author request. It's all just a matter of bullshit wikilawyering. Cyberbob  Talk  13:22, 9 October 2009 (BST)

beep boop excuse me citizen you are NOT ALLOWED to vote in this fashion according to bylaw 384238523095683405869.2532b!!! THIS IS AN OUTRAGEOUS VIOLATION OF POLICY Cyberbob  Talk  13:25, 9 October 2009 (BST)

I rawfled a little there. Come on dude, it ain't wiki lawyering. You're the one doing that. Admit you were upset by isc because he votes keep 1 million times and you took it out on boxy. Blech w/e. It's obviously not misconduct.--_GANG Giles Sednik _CAPD 13:45, 9 October 2009 (BST)

...I'm wikilawyering...? You... you do know what wikilawyering is, right? Cyberbob  Talk  13:47, 9 October 2009 (BST)

also I really don't get why people love to blame shit on PERsoNuL EMoSHUnZ so much; it's almost as though they want there to be some kind of evil ulterior motive they can demonise, hmmmmm. 13:49, 9 October 2009 (BST) this previously unsigned comment was made by Cyberbob

I'm sure Bob is bringing this case and it's arguments up from a rational perspective.--Thadeous Oakley 14:52, 9 October 2009 (BST)

And he's certainly arguing with one too. And yes, disturbingly enough Bob, you are wikilawyering. --DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION-- 15:57, 9 October 2009 (BST)

Wiki iz srs bsns bob, and in all honesty, this case does kind of seem like personal agenda. If you submitted the main page of the wiki and got 3 meatpuppet speedies on it, it still wouldn't be a valid SD because the main page doesn't fit SD guidelines; the same thing is (albiet in a much subtler manner) happening here, but without the meatpuppets or vandallism attempts. Lelouch vi Britannia is helping make Ridleybank green_ and gives Achievements 18:29, 9 October 2009 (BST)

The deletion guidelines say that any page with 3 SD votes and no keeps CAN be deleted by a sysop, not that it MUST be deleted. And since when not using a tool given by the community becomes misconduct ? Misconduct is all about the misuse of sysop powers, not the lack of use of them. --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{[talk] [wcdz]} 04:58, 10 October 2009 (BST)

A lack of use can often be more destructive than a misuse. Imagine if every sysop decided suddenly not to ban serial vandals and just to let their sprees go unchecked; this is obviously an extreme example, but would you consider that to be misconduct even though there is nothing that says a sysop MUST rule on vandal cases? Cyberbob  Talk  05:02, 10 October 2009 (BST)

Preventing vandalism while you are online is the expected duty of a system operator. It's not misuse, but negligence of the their expected duties. Now, not deleting a page which existance whose importance is null and void and which is currently going through a vote... that isnt negligence nor misuse --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{[talk] [wcdz]} 05:09, 10 October 2009 (BST)