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

Spiderzed

Putting myself up for Misconduct, because I've made a massive mistake. In the latest bot combatting, I have accidentally blocked Chief Seagull, who had wiped a spambit page and was showing up in RC as editor of it. I have unblocked him ASAP, but have still performed Misconduct and need to be banned for the same time that he was. As for formal escalations, I'll leave the decision up to my fellow ops. -- Spiderzed█ 21:44, 4 May 2011 (BST)

Farcical Misconduct - Most mundane thing ever but by precedent, you must be banned for A WHOLE MINUTE. I hope you're happy with yourself, you most grievous offender. But seriously, I honestly don't care. A minute long ban is pointless. Don't do it again and I don't care.--Yonnua Koponen ^{T G P} ^^^ 21:46, 4 May 2011 (BST)

Not Misconduct Action done in good-faith, quickly fixed his mistake. Come on Spidey, are you serious? Do you want us to ban you for 1 minute? Didn't Rev accuse of making petty cases a few hours ago? -- Thadeous Oakley Talk 21:49, 4 May 2011 (BST)

Dude admitted it was misconduct and was trying to make it right. Just let him. --Karek^{maps 2.0?!} 21:52, 4 May 2011 (BST)

Misapplied bans are considered as a serious matter regardless of length, so I felt it was better to come forward myself and take it here, then to make it seem like I shoved it under the carpet and hope no one notices. -- Spiderzed█ 21:54, 4 May 2011 (BST)

Is good, I can only think of one other sysop to ever actually note their own misconduct and he was one of the original five. --Karek^{maps 2.0?!} 21:59, 4 May 2011 (BST)

It's a mistake that is as minor as it gets. Don't worry, I'm not dragging you out for it, but this isn't misconduct. Yeah, you shouldn't have done that but just because it's a sysops power doesn't mean good-faith gets thrown out the window. -- Thadeous Oakley Talk 22:05, 4 May 2011 (BST)

Actually, it's textbook. ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 22:19, 4 May 2011 (BST)

Lots of ambiguity there, not to mention a ban out of abuse and a ban out of mistake are completely different things. The entire idea behind serving the unjust ban time is sketchy. Makes you wonder what would have happened to Ross if Karek found this Deadman walking this out after a year. -- Thadeous Oakley Talk 22:36, 4 May 2011 (BST)

Actually there's not. He'd serve a year and there would be no question. Check the archives, we always make them serve the ban so they ban cautiously. --Karek^{maps 2.0?!} 22:40, 4 May 2011 (BST)

To cut this branch of the discussion short, by precedent I consider the ban time as _non-negotiatable_ and expect to have to carry it out. The only debateable point is whether I get escalated or not. -- Spiderzed█ 22:47, 4 May 2011 (BST)

No.--Yonnua Koponen ^{T G P} ^^^ 23:06, 4 May 2011 (BST)

^. Misconduct != A/VB. Punishment here while occasionally documented on A/VD doesn't have any impact on your VD record unless otherwise ruled specifically to. Such a ruling has never happened iirc. --Karek^{maps 2.0?!} 23:14, 4 May 2011 (BST)

Just off the top of my head, I remember Mis being escalated twice based on Misconduct and have always considered this as standard procedure (with other effects like bans as embellishments based on the Misconduct in question). -- Spiderzed█ 23:19, 4 May 2011 (BST)

News to me. That's a new and stupid precedent set there, also one of the cases where it can be ignored as being called the ruled punishment. Either way A/VB is for bad faith edits, A/M is for precedural foul ups. Escalation requires intent. --Karek^{maps 2.0?!} 23:28, 4 May 2011 (BST)

Happened to me too, and Aichon's ban (from doing what happened in this case) is even recorded in his vandal data.--Yonnua Koponen ^{T G P} ^^^ 23:32, 4 May 2011 (BST)

You should only be warned for misconduct if that is specifically the punishment decided upon. All bans for misconduct also go on VD, but are not necessarily counted as escalations. ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 04:34, 5 May 2011 (BST)

It's more the principle of the thing, Meister. Spiderzed should probably just go ahead and ban himself for a minute. --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 01:03, 5 May 2011 (BST)

Sysops are explicitly no longer permitted to punish themselves for Misconduct. ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 04:34, 5 May 2011 (BST)

Oh dear, that is rather stupid. And I do now remember that policy, and I apparently voted for... *oops*--  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 05:03, 5 May 2011 (BST)

Minor Misconduct – Glad to see you doing this. If you're OK with it, I'll just ban you for the same length of time.
As for escalations… personally I think that sounds rather stupid. Sure, the ban should go on your record, but that should be it, IMO.
Edit: Fucking ninja! Thad, A/VB has a note regarding petty cases because it concerns actions that any user can perform. Sysop powers are more restricted, and any use of them needs to be held to higher standards. Spiderzed has shown that he understands this. ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 21:53, 4 May 2011 (BST)

Recent Changes said:

20:34, 4 May 2011 Spiderzed (Talk contribs) unblocked Chief Seagull (Talk contribs) ‎ (mistaken for spambot in the hurry D: ) 20:33, 4 May 2011 Spiderzed (Talk contribs) blocked Chief Seagull (Talk contribs) with an expiry time of infinite (account creation disabled) ‎ (Spambot)

Here are the relevant logs for archival purposes. --Karek^{maps 2.0?!} 21:59, 4 May 2011 (BST)

Thanks, Karek. ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 22:19, 4 May 2011 (BST)

Minor Misconduct - He made a mistake, he fixed it and he apologised. Ban him for a minute to even the books, job done. -- Cheese 10:31, 5 May 2011 (BST)