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

User:Krazy Monkey

Long time lurker, first time poster. Ok so way back last year a group of mine called amnesia was deleted. I complained. It wasn't restored on the grounds that it wasn't clear enough it was a groups page. But i was told if i remade the page as a clear group page that'd be fine. I did so and all was well until DDR was bored and in march decided a page that he said he was fine with having recreated [posted it on a/sd and judging by his comment drama seeking was most likely his motivation, but lets not go there.

Anyway no criteria is cited however if we try and read between the lines of ddrs post it seems he's putting it forward as a deletion work around. This is clearly invalid given that when i recreated it both him and bob approved of it as valid given that it was now a group page.

Basically i don't really care if cheese gets punished but i want my group restored, my groups template given back its link and my groups redirect fixed. Gracias. xoxo 12:49, 24 May 2010 (BST)

Oh yeah its obvs but i forgot to mention its misconduct coz he speedied something that didn't meet any of the crits since the disused group crit carked it. he also didn't cite what crit it was in the log or on a/sd so yeah. xoxo 12:53, 24 May 2010 (BST)

Correct English. That is all. --Thadeous Oakley 13:40, 24 May 2010 (BST)

Not Misconduct - Basically, from what I can tell, you made the page twice, and both times it could be classified as Crit 1 (I'd have felt more comfortable having it go through Deletions, I think, just to get some more opinions), thus, Cheese acted responsibly in speedy deleting it. DDR told you that it wouldn't be a Crit 6 if, when you made it again, you changed it to be an actual group page, with the assumption being that you'd flesh it out like, you know, an actual group page. You didn't, however, since it looks to me like you merely copy/pasted the group template and added one other one. So I can see where he was coming from in thinking that it was a Crit 6 as well, since your lack of substantial addition to the page could easily appear to be a thinly veiled attempt at circumventing the previous deletion.

As for your demands, it sounds to me like A/U is where you want to go. If you do actually follow DDR's advice and make an actual group page (rather than merely slapping on the trimmings of one), it won't be a Crit 1 or a Crit 6 any longer. —Aichon— 21:49, 24 May 2010 (BST)

One - Ha! i tried A/U last time to little effect. 2 - plz point me to this guidelines for an actual group page. The group is called amnesia ffs it was never going to have a 4000 word essay on the group on it. Its my group, i want it back! it was deleted for nooo reason apart from cheese submitting to ddr's drama stirring. If it had of A/D-ed i'd be pissed but this wouldn't be misconduct (obvs). Just because the submitter is a crat/sysop/prominant user (cbf looking up what it was at the time) doesn't mean cheese should just go ahead. Some basic research would have shown it was a case for deletions not a/sd. not cool. xoxo 12:23, 25 May 2010 (BST)

User:Krazy Monkey

As below I have proven that Woot had not broken any rules but Krazy Monkey had terminated Woot's sysop nomination. He did this as a sysop and reported Woot. If he had done this as a member it would be a VandalBan case but since he did this as a sysop it is Miscontribution.

--Sonny Corleone ^{DORIS I jizzed in my pants pr0n} 21:24, 23 May 2010 (BST)

He used no sysop powers in doing that, as such this isn't misconduct. This was already explained to you, but evidently without enough pretty pictures. 21:33, 23 May 2010 (BST)

We already ruled on this case a few days ago and almost everything you said in your above comment was outright incorrect. —Aichon— 21:37, 23 May 2010 (BST)

Sexy, sexy precedents:

• Removed early due to not meeting criteria
• Removed early again due to not meeting criteria
• Removed early due to being ruled as vandalism
• Removed early due to being ruled as vandalism

WOOT has posted a grand total of 5 promotions bids and in none of them has he provided any decent reasons as to why he should be a sysop. The past 3 have been ruled to be vandalism. He really needs to stop this. If wants to be a sysop, he should actually start trying instead of posting stupid half arsed paragraphs about faggots and cocks. -- Cheese 22:36, 23 May 2010 (BST)

Already ruled Not Misconduct -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 22:48 23 May 2010 (BST)

User:Yonnua Koponen

13:05, May 22, 2010 Yonnua Koponen (Talk | contribs) blocked "WOOT (contribs)" with an expiry time of 1 month (Spamming A/PM)

Why? Has he broken a rule? I see no rule saying that putting yourself up for promotion is not allowed. In fact, that would set a dangerous precedent. Unless the sysops like you you cannot run for sysop. Vandalism is defined as an edit in bad faith. This includes wiping of a page, impersonation, and blatantly lying. Running as a sysop to remove wiki corruption is not bad faith, in fact this is perhaps an example of true good faith. The sysops called this SPAM because he did not meet the guidelines. Well I'm sorry to say this but the Guidelines do not mention a penalty or even any requirements.

Users who wish to request System Operator status (and users who wish to nominate other users for System Operator status) should note that before they can be considered the following guidelines should be met by the candidate

The guidelines SHOULD be met, not must. If something should be met it means it is encouraged but not enforced. When something must be met it means a definitive situation where there are consequences.

If a user is highly exemplary in one criterion, a certain level of give may be extended to other criteria.

The guidelines also say this. If Woot is highly exemplary in one criterion then he will get leeway in other criteria. Desire to become a System Operator. - We define this simply as indicating in the candidate's request their desire for the position Clearly Woot desires to be a sysop, meaning he had leeway in the rest of the NOT REQUIRED criteria.

On the rest of the page there is not a single mention that sysops can terminate the nomination. It even says that it is not a vote but a request for comments from the community.

Yonnua Koponen had banned Woot not for breaking any rules, which I have clearly pointed out that none were broken, but because of his dislike for Woot. --Sonny Corleone ^{DORIS I jizzed in my pants pr0n} 21:24, 23 May 2010 (BST)

Not Misconduct. UDWiki:Administration/Vandal_Banning/Archive/2009_06#User:WOOT sound familiar? --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 21:48, 23 May 2010 (BST)

Also this. Not Misconduct. 21:51, 23 May 2010 (BST)

WOOT's edits were ruled as Vandalism, as such, they were removed as vandal edits, which you conveniently didn't consider as an option for why sysops can remove bids. Yonnua banned WOOT as per the terms of the escalation he received after having his actions ruled as Vandalism. Simply put, you didn't like the result of the case, so now you're spamming admin pages so that you can whine about sysops doing their job. Not Misconduct. —Aichon— 21:51, 23 May 2010 (BST)

I'm sorry, when was it decided that I don't like Woot?--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 22:06, 23 May 2010 (BST)

Not misconduct - applying a ban decided unanimously by the sysop team. If W00t didn't have a long history of creating obviously humourous promotion bids, and then spamming them with idiotic replies, you may have a reason to bring this case. As it is... meh -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 22:50 23 May 2010 (BST)

So even if he was unfairly banned its ok because everyone agreed on it? I love mob mentality. --Sonny Corleone ^{DORIS I jizzed in my pants pr0n} 03:12, 24 May 2010 (BST)

Of course it is. After all, you wouldn't blame the jailer for a sentence you disagreed with; you'd blame the judge or jury. Yonnua acted responsibly and as he should have. —Aichon— 04:07, 24 May 2010 (BST)

bitch got owned. --

 

 

 

 

06:52, 24 May 2010 (BST)

Not Misconduct - As the Box. -- Cheese 22:53, 23 May 2010 (BST)

Fail. --

 

 

 

 

00:58, 24 May 2010 (BST)

User:Krazy Monkey

Archived as not misconduct -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 08:50 20 May 2010 (BST)