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

Misanthropy

See here. --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ ^{#nerftemplatedsigs} 03:46, 7 October 2011 (BST)

In my defence, I'd just like to say, go eat a fuck. 03:57, 7 October 2011 (BST)

Don't you mean "suck a fuck"... just sayin', 'cause "eat a fuck"... that's just silly -- boxy 06:38, 7 October 2011 (BST)

No, no. Eat one. I'll get you a spoon. 07:54, 7 October 2011 (BST)

Misanconduct - editing a high profile, protected page to comply with a mock arbies ruling. Keep the lulz to appropriate areas, thanks -- boxy 06:38, 7 October 2011 (BST)

Misconduct - As boxy and myself on A/VB. Vandalizing protected page is obviously also misconduct. --Karek^{maps 2.0?!} 10:43, 7 October 2011 (BST)

Misconduct - Yeah, sorry but this is pretty blatantly a joke gone too far.--The General ^{T Sys U! P! F!} 11:16, 7 October 2011 (BST)

Not Misconduct see:

--Karloth Vois ^¯\(°_o)/¯ 15:15, 7 October 2011 (BST)

Misconduct. Ban him Immediately. There is no conspiracy to drive people away from the wiki. --^{Hey Sweden!} 16:57, 7 October 2011 (BST)

WHY SO TROUBLE MAKER MISANTHROPY. YOU DON'T NEED TO DO ALL THIS JUST TO IMPRESS LITTLE OLD ME?!?! -- ϑ^anceϑ^anceℜ^evolution 07:18, 8 October 2011 (BST)

I AM A BAD PERSON 18:39, 8 October 2011 (BST)

As a serious breach of community trust, I feel that Misanthropy should be demoted for his actions, and I sincerely hope that the ruling sysops make such a decision.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 11:36, 9 October 2011 (BST)

As I am under consideration for Misconduct for a related edit, I consider myself too involved to rule. -- Spiderzed█ 12:26, 9 October 2011 (BST)

Mis, since when did you start doing anything on Yon's authority? ~ _{17:42, 9 October 2011 (UTC)}

Shit, man, I just spammed a duck. Timing is sheer coincidence. 18:29, 9 October 2011 (BST)

Ducklings always carry with them a ban hammer just as cute and fluffy as they are.       18:58, 9 October 2011 (BST)

Ruling (Mis)

Ok, looks to be pretty clearly coming down as misconduct. I think that the warning he would have received for the actual vandalism is sufficient in this case -- boxy 21:14, 9 October 2011 (BST)

I'd favour 2 escalations. --^{Hey Sweden!} 17:45, 10 October 2011 (BST)

I'd actually agree with that. Vandalizing a protected page should be treated rougher than vandalizing a non-protected page simply because of the privs involved. --Karek^{maps 2.0?!} 06:33, 11 October 2011 (BST)

I'd like to point out that my warn history already includes a case for vandalising a protected page, which warranted one (1) escalation. 15:52, 12 October 2011 (BST)

You've done it before and haven't learnt from your previous warning?--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 16:19, 12 October 2011 (BST)

You're actually making an argument for why you should be more than warned. 1. That case honestly is a great example of why the punishment proposed is a relative joke. 2. You went from random redirect to doing it to the main page. 3. Why would we simply warn you when you've had privs for such a short time before vandalizing with them? Or when you have a history of doing it? --Karek^{maps 2.0?!} 17:51, 12 October 2011 (BST)

There's little point in giving him two misconduct warnings for the same thing at once, unless you mean to hand out a vandal and misconduct warning out separetely but even that is subject to debate.-- Thadeous Oakley Talk 19:11, 12 October 2011 (BST)

In Fact, since it's so obvious that he ignored his previous warning and did this anyway, I'd personally say that he needs a much more severe punishment to merit the fact that he's done the same thing twice, and clearly could remember his last warning for it.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 20:05, 12 October 2011 (BST)

How about letting him clean up the spam(bots) on his own for two weeks? Every spampage/bot missed will lead to additional escalations. Or let him speedy delete banana tactics under crit 2. Wait! Even a better idea! Punish him by forcing him to write a good anti-meatpuppet policy, rewriting it until it passes voting if necessary. The possibilities are endless. -- Thadeous Oakley Talk 20:17, 12 October 2011 (BST)

How about we put a picture of a duckling on his user page... or would that be overstepping the mark, into cruel and unusual punishment? -- boxy 21:53, 12 October 2011 (BST)

Demote him and promote Goribus in his stead.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 22:01, 12 October 2011 (BST)

Spiderzed

See here. --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ ^{#nerftemplatedsigs} 03:46, 7 October 2011 (BST)

All I did was to make a crappy edit a bit less crappy by at least linking an explanation for the main page change. Sure, in hindsight, I should have simply rolled it back. But I don't see how my edit made the page worse, not to speak of bad faith. Even a soft warning would be ridiculous, IMHO. -- Spiderzed█ 12:25, 9 October 2011 (BST)

This one is a little borderline. He's adding info on the reason for the idiocy. Should have just rolled it back -- boxy 06:41, 7 October 2011 (BST)

Not Misconduct - Yes, he should have just rolledback rather than adding the link, but adding the explanation isn't vandalism by itself. I'd still recommend a soft warning of "Be more responsible when editing protected pages".--The General ^{T Sys U! P! F!} 11:12, 11 October 2011 (BST)

Should have immediately rollbacked the edit that was obviously vandalism/misconduct. Instead of doing so he just made an irrelevant alteration, irrelevant as it was going to be reverted regardless. He probably did not want to feel left out on the joke, but that's not a proper sysops action. If you see blatant vandalism like that a sysops should always act when possible, maybe ignoring it if you can't be bothered (though still poor), but certainly not toying with it for kicks. A soft-warning really isn't that ridiculous considering this and should it happen again it should just be a warning altogether.-- Thadeous Oakley Talk 19:05, 12 October 2011 (BST)

Concluded Misconduct Cases

Check the Archive for concluded Misconduct cases.