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

Cheese

As requested:

“	As Cheese undeleted my user page even though I requested it in the same manner as other off wiki requests, it means he has to be taken to misconduct for doing so. As he undeleted it on grounds that we don't delete user pages and it's patently false through the history of the wiki.	”
—Iscariot

• Page logs.
• Deletion.
• Undeletion
• Userpage Deletion Precedent 1.
• Userpage Deletion Precedent 2.
• Userpage Deletion Precedent 3.

Opinions? ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 15:52, 14 May 2011 (BST)

My opinion is that we finally need to come to a definitive conclusion about allowing or disallowing off-site requests. The issue isn't as much that deletions happen or don't happen based on off-site requests, the issue is that we have no clear stance on it. Be screwed when you carry out such a request, be screwed when you don't. --Oh, and vote on Project Funny, by the way. -- Spiderzed█ 16:13, 14 May 2011 (BST)

Policy makes no mention of where a request is made, so by default it's allowed if you can contact a trusted user. This is long supported by precedent for e.g. unblock requests. Personally I think this is the most sensible way to run this; sysops who do not object to the extra burden can make themselves available via a wider range of contact methods. I see nobody complaining about users emailing sysops or discussions taking place via IRC, both of which have been used to make requests in the past. ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 16:29, 14 May 2011 (BST)

The fact that someone is logging misconduct via email pretty much supports why off-site requests are bad. What's next? Voting on A/BP via email? ~ _{16:44, 14 May 2011 (UTC)}

Does it make it any less Misconduct? Proxy voting would not be permitted, as it would be technically multiple votes by the same user. ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 16:49, 14 May 2011 (BST)

Yeah. It kind of does. It just adds more controversy to an already controversial topic. This case will either further split the opinions of the ops regarding off site administrative requests or will finally force consensus. Either way, Cheese shouldn't be held liable for acting as he saw fit in the face of a unprecedented, ungoverned situation. ~ _{20:59, 14 May 2011 (UTC)}

May I just point out that this is an undeletion from a year ago which was requested on the undeletions page and no one objected to? Secondly, only the third "precedent" link can actually be considered precedent because the first two hadn't happened yet.

IMHO, this is just Iscariot stirring up drama once again; only this time he's trying to do it by proxy so he doesn't even have to bother posting it himself. For someone who is boycotting this wiki, he sure seems to care a lot about what's going on...--The General ^{T U! P! F!} 17:05, 14 May 2011 (BST)

He only cares because I brought it to his attention earlier after noticing his user page's protection and checking up on the reasons. Otherwise he'd still be ignoring the place. (FYI, going to sleep now. Will check back later.) ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 17:11, 14 May 2011 (BST)

Except that he has a history of posting stupid cases on tenous grounds and requesting ridiculous punishments.--The General ^{T U! P! F!} 19:01, 14 May 2011 (BST)

Uhm, General, did you read the same undeletion request I did? Two users challenged it, both former sysops. One(DDR) said he wouldn't misconduct but that it was wrong and the other(SA) was very vocal in his opposition to it. --Karek^{maps 2.0?!} 19:44, 14 May 2011 (BST)

OK, turns out that my original comment didn't actually say what I intended it to say. What I meant was: "no one objected strongly enough to actually do anything about it". If DDR or SA thought it was wrong then I don't see why they didn't contact the other sysops or bring the issue here; given that they didn't, I can only surmise that they didn't care that deeply about it.--The General ^{T U! P! F!} 21:37, 14 May 2011 (BST)

Also, to me, this whole argument seems silly: The point of the admin pages is to make sure that everything is accountable; It's the same logic behind why we haven't allowed admins to delete non crit.7 stuff based on talk page messages (and why it took till March 2009 to approve that).

Now, if we're going to start working off the presumption that trusted users are *gasp* trusted enough to testify that a user requested something off-wiki then why can't we trust them enough to make other Speedy Deletions based on a request made on-wiki but merely on the wrong page. Why can't we trust them to recognise and delete a blank page without written orders signed in triplicate? Why have we misconducted people for deleting pages that they themselves created as a test? Why did we need to pass a two week vote to allow sysops to delete pages created by adbots? I don't get it.--The General ^{T U! P! F!} 22:12, 14 May 2011 (BST)

If you actually read the logs, my exact reason for deleting it was "If he wants it deleted he can come and indicate on the wiki or evidence can be provided (screenshot or irc log) that he wishes as such." I did not at any point mention that we do not delete user pages (that was Thad), my main beef is the off-site request. This case (and the reasoning behind it) is therefore bullshit. -- Cheese 17:07, 14 May 2011 (BST)

Only because it's been a year. Other than that the simple fact is it would have been misconduct if the case was brought up when it should have been. As is we don't just rule misconduct on things that happened ages ago. Also, if you wanted to undelete you would have been required by undeletion policy to have a misconduct ruling against the deleting sysop since the user request was both baseless and challanged. Just so we're all clear on that. --Karek^{maps 2.0?!} 19:44, 14 May 2011 (BST)

DDR restored Iscariot's signature page shortly after Revenant deleted because he disagreed with deletion. Where are the misconduct cases for these users then? -- Thadeous Oakley Talk 20:54, 14 May 2011 (BST)

That was confusion regarding scheduled deletion qualification. Although we can totally do that if you want to push the issue so long as we also clear up issues in crit 7 rules and punish sysops who try and rule on misconduct cases and deletions cases they were involved in. --Karek^{maps 2.0?!} 21:23, 14 May 2011 (BST)

It was about the same thing as this here.-- Thadeous Oakley Talk 21:32, 14 May 2011 (BST)

Karek, why don't we rule on Misconduct cases from ages ago? Nobody brought it up in this case, which was similarly long after the fact and similarly brought by Revenant on behalf of a user boycotting the wiki. Although the case was ruled Not Misconduct, none of the rulings were about the case's timing.--Yonnua Koponen ^{T G P} ^^^ 20:20, 14 May 2011 (BST)

That was a case about a ban that, at the time of the case, was being served. So, yeah, that case wasn't something brought up a year after the fact. Also because the ban was valid until a clear request had been made by Grim. --Karek^{maps 2.0?!} 20:52, 14 May 2011 (BST)

Fair enough, that makes sense. Couldn't really see why the case didn't have a mention, but I get it now. Any precedent of us not misconducting based on an offence happening ages ago? I had a look but couldn't see anything.--Yonnua Koponen ^{T G P} ^^^ 21:53, 14 May 2011 (BST)

As long as there is no precedent or policy or any other agreement whether or not off-site requests are allowed for deletions this can't be misconduct. -- Thadeous Oakley Talk 20:54, 14 May 2011 (BST)

The precedent should have been dealt with at the time of the request before the undeletion. Also since you're the requester you really shouldn't even be anywhere close to getting involved in ruling on this case. --Karek^{maps 2.0?!} 21:13, 14 May 2011 (BST)

By that logic the precedent should have been dealt at the time of the request before the deletion. Also, where am I ruling? I'm not, thanks. -- Thadeous Oakley Talk 21:17, 14 May 2011 (BST)

Not this shit again. We already had this debate. Expressing your opinion on the case is ruling since your a sysop and this is a sysop actionable page. What other meaning could we take from "this can't be misconduct."? --Karek^{maps 2.0?!} 21:31, 14 May 2011 (BST)

I'm speaking out as a regular user, not as a sysops otherwise it would have been bolded. Being involved doesn't mean I don't have an opinion. I guess Cheese shouldn't be posting here as well? -- Thadeous Oakley Talk 21:41, 14 May 2011 (BST)

I quoted you, you said that it was not misconduct. Your words. You did not say "I am not ruling" you did not say "I don't want my opinion given weight" you said "This can not be misconduct". Please stop acting like everyone else is retarded, your meaning was as clear as it gets. --Karek^{maps 2.0?!} 21:55, 14 May 2011 (BST)

I still think it's not misconduct. Whoops did it again. However being that I might be involved, I do not intend to let this opinion carry any weight when counting up the rulings. This is why it isn't bolded. It isn't meant to be taken as a syops action. -- Thadeous Oakley Talk 22:02, 14 May 2011 (BST)

By the way, the deletion vote didn't need it because it's actually a requirement on A/U. Please read relevant rules before making requests on admin pages in the future. Thanks. --Karek^{maps 2.0?!} 21:31, 14 May 2011 (BST)

“	Undeletions may only be granted if the user provides a convincing reason as to why the page should be resurrected, or if the page was deleted as a result of a system operators abuse.	”
—A/U

^Said rule. --Karek^{maps 2.0?!} 21:33, 14 May 2011 (BST)

I'd say a dispute about the original deletion request possibly not being valid is a pretty convincing reason, and for Cheese it was. How long are we going to walk in circles here? -- Thadeous Oakley Talk 21:45, 14 May 2011 (BST)

We're not. That's a claim of misconduct, guess where that has to go to be a valid claim? You can't overrule administrative action on the basis of it being inactionable without also ruling the action misconduct unilaterally which is the definition of misconduct. --Karek^{maps 2.0?!} 21:55, 14 May 2011 (BST)

Nope, not a claim of misconduct, because neither Cheese for undeleting it, nor Misanthropy for deleting it, can be misconducted for it. This is simply because the issue of whether or not off-site requests can blablabla. The issue isn't mentioned in policy or precedent, nor any agreement like mentioned earlier. Our wikilaw has failed us, because there is no law on this. Therefore neither parties can be held responsible. -- Thadeous Oakley Talk 22:09, 14 May 2011 (BST)

“	System operators are also given the authority to make decisions regarding actions for which there is no governing policy in place. For example, should a particular action for which there is no policy be disputed, system operators may exercise their best judgment to allow or deny it.	”
—A/G

“	For any administrator-specific actions, if a system operator is found to have been in error, the processes of sysop misconduct may be used to resolve the issue.	”
—A/G

Mis made a judgement call based on lack of prohibition or allowance by policy. Cheese ignored policy and precedent in reversing the judgement call unilaterally without an A/M case. It's actually really clear. --Karek^{maps 2.0?!} 22:18, 14 May 2011 (BST)

^Exactly what Thad said. This case can't be resolved either way, unless a clear stance is determined. As we can't punish ops for rules that send mixed signals and might or might not exist, I go with Not Misconduct. Meanwhile, I recommend A/PD to find a stance that is supported by the community, since existing policy and precedent fail to give clear guidelines on the validity of off-site requests. Feel free to return with this case once that has happened. --Oh, and vote on Project Funny, by the way. -- Spiderzed█ 22:21, 14 May 2011 (BST)

Nice to see the person wabbling about knowing policy completely overlooks the fact that there was a misconduct case. Oh look. Nice talking to you, I'm off to bed. -- Thadeous Oakley Talk 22:26, 14 May 2011 (BST)

Recently Concluded Misconduct Cases

There are currently no recently concluded misconduct cases. Check the Archive for older cases