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

• Misanthropy (talk | contribs | logs | block | IP Check | vndl data | discuss)

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)

Misconduct – And a severe lapse in judgement: namely, paying any kind of attention to A/A, and, especially, taking Yon seriously. Honestly, Mis, I expected better from you. ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 03:45, 13 October 2011 (BST)

Don't be a doofus. He didn't take yon seriously. He didn't take anything seriously (including and most importantly, the wiki), he just did it for a laugh. annoying 04:03, 13 October 2011 (BST)

I am clearly being deadly serious. ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 04:44, 13 October 2011 (BST)

Yeah you didn't vehemently defend misanthropy irrespective of actual obvious guilt. I was a fool for thinking it was serious annoying 08:45, 13 October 2011 (BST)

Attempting to plumb the depths of your sarcasm is making my head hurt. Good job, tiger. ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 13:42, 13 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)

Comments unrelated to actually producing a ruling have been moved

In-case it's unclear I'm suggesting giving him two vandal escalations or, alternatively escalating all the way to the first ban level since clearly this has both been an issue before, is less than 90 days after his promotion, occurred on the main page, and Mis has shown before not to take a warning as a serious punishment in response to abusing privileges for the sake of his own jokes. --Karek^{maps 2.0?!} 22:28, 12 October 2011 (BST)

If a non-op user had committed two acts of vandalism on high-traffic pages with many months between occurrences, would they receive additional escalations beyond what's traditionally called for? If you give me two for this I'll hold you to doing the same for each similar case from here on in for consistency's sake, and if you're not willing to do that, then why do it here? I don't mind a warning, but I do mind being made an example of without good reason. 23:12, 12 October 2011 (BST)

You're not a non-op and you did it to the main page knowing full well that it's not ok. You don't get to make demands, especially when your demand is for a non-punishment that you acknowledge wasn't a deterrent for even a less extreme version of this same nonsense. --Karek^{maps 2.0?!} 03:23, 13 October 2011 (BST)

Did I say it was okay? No. I said I'm perfectly amenable to a fair punishment for a joke action, not some special-case desire to treat this case differently without any real grounds. You're basically saying that because I was warned once, fourteen months ago, for something similar, and have had that warning stricken for thirteen months, that I now get double escalations. My "demand", which is a strong fucking word for "asking for consistency", is that you don't start making up new standards on the fly. One act of vandalism, one case, no currently active escalations, so one escalation wraps the whole thing up. You've not actually given any reason for additional escalations that could be seen to apply universally, and if these thing's don't apply universally then this isn't a fair process. Consistency. That's all I'm asking for. Sorry, "demanding". 03:32, 13 October 2011 (BST)

If that's what it seems like my stance is then I must be coming off pretty strangely. My stance is that because you vandalized a protected page a simple warning would be ridiculous in the extreme. You performed two acts of policy violation, one of abuse of privileges and one of vandalism and should accordingly be punished for each. Vandalism of admin edit only pages isn't the same as base vandalism, it's a severe problem. I stated my opinion on these types of cases in other parts of the wiki where you were actively part of the discussion and am not aware of any place where what I've said couldn't be consistently applied to all cases. Your comments read as if you're seriously offended at the notion of you being punished for anything more than basic vandalism for doing it to an admin edit only page, the list of which includes all mediawiki pages, all stylesheets, and essential functionality pages like the server access portal(otherwise refereed to as the main page). This case isn't the same as if someone changed a suburb color, why would we ever treat it that way? --Karek^{maps 2.0?!} 12:32, 13 October 2011 (BST)

As for "demand" when you give terms you're demanding. The point of a higher level of escalation is twofold. The first is that in previous cases of related misconduct you yourself made a statement that clearly implied that a warning wasn't considered an actual deterrent or punishment for you(I am referring to "Fucking worth it." in response to an equivalent ruling for a less extreme version of exactly this, consistency would imply that you would consider a warning for this a non-punishment yet again, so why would we do that when the point is to deter and curtail this behavior? This is massively consistent with my stance on the issue as any trip through Hagnat's misconduct archive will quickly make clear. The second purpose is that I don't consider a misconduct warning a punishment fitting of "real" misconduct, things along the lines of incorrect banning, page deletion, using protection to punish users you disagree with, or vandalism of protected pages. These are all issues of gross misconduct just below the level of privacy policy violations. To punish you simply for the vandalism and not for the gross misconduct related to it is special treatment. Again something I've been fairly consistent about over the years. --Karek^{maps 2.0?!} 12:32, 13 October 2011 (BST)

A warning seems appropriate. ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 03:45, 13 October 2011 (BST)

Spiderzed

• Spiderzed (talk | contribs | logs | block | IP Check | vndl data | discuss)

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)

Actually, there's a point to be made that it's probably not vandalism but, I could see the argument for misconduct. Assisting inappropriate edits isn't something sysops should be doing, someone vandalizes the main page it should be revert on site. Not link to an explanation of the joke. Oh, and get your soft-warnings out of here, you don't non-punish on A/M unless you're trying to shame someone instead of curtail misuse of privileges(the point of this procedure). --Karek^{maps 2.0?!} 22:32, 12 October 2011 (BST)

Maybe for you, but in my opinion soft-warnings can be used to discourage users from making certain actions, nothing more. There's no policy on soft-warnings whatsoever and there's no reason why we couldn't use it on misconduct as well. -- Thadeous Oakley Talk 11:37, 13 October 2011 (BST)

I suppose it could be construed as Technical Misconduct (editing protected page, not reverting silly change, sysop higher responsibility, slap on the wrist don't do it again yadda yadda), although I'm open to being persuaded otherwise.

I'm pretty sure sysops have never been forced to do their job before. If a sysop sees that a spambit has vandalised a page, they don't have to revert and ban the bot. They should, but they don't have to. On that basis, imo, the rulings shouldn't focus on what he should have done, but on the nature of the edit he actually made, and whether or not that was misconduct.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 14:13, 13 October 2011 (BST)

Also, I want everyone who uses templates and formatting in section headers to die, please. ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 03:50, 13 October 2011 (BST)

What a fucking stupid case. He looked at it and made the right move. Fuck you axe. annoying 04:00, 13 October 2011 (BST)

What you say?!? He didn't update the wiki news box to announce the change – a heinous crime of the highest calibre. We should throw the book at him! ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 13:52, 13 October 2011 (BST)

Concluded Misconduct Cases

Check the Archive for concluded Misconduct cases.