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 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)

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)

Misconduct Cases Currently Under Consideration

User:J3D

Does it get any more obviously biased? --HAHAHA DISREGARD THAT, I SUCK COCKS 17:58, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Bob.... get a life, I made a joke in good faith which may or may not be worth a warning and J3D has made a flippant comment on the resulting A/VB case showing his clear bias and personal opinion. Opinion yes, which arguably means that apparently it should be on the talk page rather than the main... still, show me exactly where he has bolded the words "Not Misconduct" or are you suggesting that an opinion is now a ruling and does not need to be bolded to count as such? --Honestmistake 18:06, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Not misconduct, actually, not a case at all. You used to know when people were joking bob. --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{talk mod} 18:41, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

User:Nubis

This case is being brought at the insistence of Nubis himself, we're always being told by the sysops to use talk pages before admin pages, but apparently that doesn't apply to them.

Back when I returned to this wiki I noticed an act of de-escalation that was done incorrectly. Unsure of whether this could be considered vandalism or misconduct, I asked Nubis. He agreed with my original leanings that it was probably misconduct.

Then there was a whole succession of sysop posts on that page over Katthew being de-escalated when there were no records to prove or disprove her contributions. I pointed out that even if it could be proven with a complete edit history that a user had not been correctly de-escalated they would still probably not vote misconduct if the case was brought. In his next edit Nubis ended all further discussion and demanded this be taken to misconduct.

Let us now look at the criteria for de-escalations so that we are all familiar with them. The Administrations Guidelines (a policy document) gives the criteria as: "To encourage users to reform and become good contributors to this Wiki, a single vandal escalation can be struck out for every 250 good-faith edits the warned user makes, provided that one month has passed, since the user's last infraction, with another month for every subsequent striking after the first in the series, restarting in the event of a vandal escalation." Now we have the two criteria for a successful de-escalation, namely:

1. One month must have passed since the edit that was ruled vandalism
2. 250 good faith edits must have been made

Note: that under Vandalism guidelines "good faith" is taken to mean any edit that contributes to the wiki, any edit that is not "bad faith" and therefore vandalism.

Now for some reason on Nubis' talk page, all the sysops (that's our trusted users who are supposed to know and enact the policies we as a community have voted on) could only see a problem with Katthew's de-escalation, even when there was a case with a clear edit history that had been incorrectly de-escalated. They must have just been having brain tumours for breakfast that week....

The de-escalation in question was mine. Although a month had passed, I had not made 250 good faith edits by this point. This is clearly in breach of the policy as I have outlined above.

Now we must determine if indeed it is misconduct. A check of the top of the page gives the check of administrative actions, ones that if abused can be considered misconduct. Clearly on that list is "Editing of Protected pages by any means." Vandal Data is a protected page, and was at the time of Nubis' edit. The case is clearly concerning an administrative action and is therefore subject to misconduct proceedings.

Although mentioned nowhere in policy or guidelines, including the example case above, faith of these edits has been looked at in recent times (the cynical of us stating in hushed whispers that this is a means of self preservation for certain sysops to do this to set precedence in all cases), now we will look at the two possible motives.

1. Incompetence The first motive is incompetence, Nubis made the edits without fully completing his duties as a sysop. As all sysops are expected and required by the guidelines to ensure that a de-escalation is valid before striking the warning, this makes Nubis' edit misconduct if this is taken to be his reasoning.

2. Intentional Intentional? But how can a sysop intentionally subvert the community consensus in the course of his/her duties? There is a small line in the Administration Guidelines policy document that was placed there to protect sysops acting against unforeseen situations in a manner consistent with the protection of the community consensus. This line reads, "System operators, as trusted users of the wiki, are given the right to make judgment calls and use their best discretion on a case-by-case basis. Should the exact wording of the policies run contrary to a system operators' best good-faith judgment and/or the spirit of the policies, the exact wording may be ignored." Unfortunately in recent times this has been used by sysops attempting to moderate this wiki as a blanket authority to act any way they want. Accordingly, we must take it into account. In order to make a judgment (sic) call", a user must be conscious of his decision. Therefore if Nubis acted in accordance with the first motive I have presented then he cannot claim this as a defence. Going further into this line we find contrary to a system operators' best good-faith judgment (sic) and/or the spirit of the policies. The spirit of the policy in this case is clear, to rehabilitate a user who's edits have been considered vandalism by the wiki, as I was not editing the wiki at the time, and had not been for weeks, Nubis cannot show that this spirit of the policy needed to be ignored, I was not in danger of receiving another escalation due to making no edits, so his action could not have been done to protect me from an unwarranted ban. This leaves us with the final possible out for his actions, contrary to a system operators' best good-faith judgment (sic), in order to use this, and thus hide behind this clause, Nubis must demonstrate that he used his best judgement in good faith for his actions. Nubis must therefore answer the following question to the satisfaction of the community: How is it an act of good faith to this wiki community to ignore a policy and de-escalate early a user with the history of Iscariot?

In my opinion it is not possible for him to answer this question sufficiently to satisfy the act of arbitrarily overriding the policy of this community.

Going on the traditional punishments found in the misconduct archives, Nubis has committed misconduct by abusing his abilities and de-escalating a user incorrectly, either through ignorance or intentional subversion of the community. He should therefore receive his next escalation.

-- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 16:24, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

You == Asshole. And that will be my entire contribution to this case. --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{talk mod} 17:00, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Just a tad too much time on your hands. --HAHAHA DISREGARD THAT, I SUCK COCKS 17:19, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

1. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH ! 2. You are clearly a prolific poster on the wiki. It had been over a month and there was no doubt (although a hope) that you would suddenly go inactive. I was rather confident that you would get the 250 edits (as at that time I loaded 250 edits and the oldest ones were from the day of your warning.) 3. I even admitted "the only de-escalation that was really on the cusp was probably yours. " because you see, unlike you, when I don't like someone I don't seek out ways to "get them". 4. And, How is it an act of good faith to this wiki community to ignore a policy and de-escalate early a user with the history of Iscariot? What history? Someone that runs the recruiting page? Someone that is the patron Saint of Dupes and actually reasonably defends the (few) good points in suggestions? Someone that even though he has a stick up his ass about the stupidest fucking things is still making good edits (alongside the snarky foul ones)? Because to me that's your history. I don't care if I don't personally like you, you contribute a shit load to this wiki and to "harass" you or hound you looking for things to take to VB would asinine. I think you are the biggest fucking douchebag on here, but if you need something moved, deleted, or fixed I'd do it for you because through your contributions you have earned that respect. (then I'd report right here to Misconduct because you hate me). Also, it was just a warning. It's not like I could have left it and then found something to ban you over. Either way that warning was going away and wouldn't matter. --– Nubis ^NWO 18:39, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Misconductification* Nubis should have never deescalated an ass such as yourself.
* _{Actually Not Misconduct for all the various reasons that Nubis listed above.} Conndraka^{mod TAZM CFT} 22:41, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Can I misconduct you for posting annoying double rulings all the time? -- Cheese 22:43, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Short version: Nubis de-descalated Iscariot's warning prematurely at 243 edits, instead of 250. --ZsL 00:53, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Ok, so is 7 edits enough to be misconduct? What is your ruling? --– Nubis ^NWO 10:23, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Well, it technically is misconduct, but it's so minor that you should just get a slap on the wrist. *smack* --ZsL 11:13, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

I guess this case raises a big question...should sysops merely follow the exactly word of the law or should they take some sort of personality. Coz like usually i think sysops are fuckers but srsly this shouldn't be bad. I'm gonna say misconduct but lyk i don't want any shit to happen to ma man nubis. Coz he's a good guy. And he meant well. Can we plz recall sysops mods, coz then i wouldn't have a problem with this sort of shit going down. You guys wanted it to be sysops but srsly fuck that shit, we're mods and thats fine. Just accept it...... Love xoxo 03:52, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Misconduct - For Nubis' reason #1. Also, I don't really know why this would be considered something worth punishing unless it was some ridiculous distance from reaching the required, unless I'm missing something you've now exceeded the limit that leads to this case. However, Nubis says it's misconduct I guess I have to agree with the guy.--Karek^maps?! 04:12, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Reason no. 1 was my actual response when I realized he was talking about himself yet let us all discuss Katthew. I bet he was sitting there going Mwhahaha, those fools don't even suspect my real case! and twirling his mustache like some cartoon fiend. And I was only off by 7 edits? Impressive. I would say let this case be a warning to all the sysops, but Iscariot seems to have a hard on for me. --– Nubis ^NWO 10:19, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

I would really hate to think you did this just to your drama template. When you read the summary it doesn't look good for you.--– Nubis ^NWO 10:30, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

shouldn't you wait til boxy rules before making your decision?xoxo 04:42, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Shouldn't you be trying not to give us reasons to suspect Nallan is on the J3D account? Maybe not say stupid shit that shows you can't actually look through wiki histories like you should already be doing as a sysop, or sign with his name?--Karek^maps?! 04:58, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

quite frankly i'd be glad if you thought nick and jed were the same account. I mean it's so apparent we aren't. If you suspected us i'd be all like "lol what a douche he thinks we're the same person" coz like, who the fuck could be bothered acting like different people for 2 yearss??? that shits stupid....xoxo 05:07, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Obviously you've never heard of miagate and don't know how to check and figure out why it would be a question in the first place.--Karek^maps?! 05:10, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

ROFLMAOPMP@MIAGATE --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{talk mod} 11:07, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

What was Miagate? =/ And Misconduct. Barely. Give him a finger tap on the wrist, that should make up for it. -- Cheese 11:28, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Miagate involved a case of multiple personality disorder which Karek seems to think was faked. --HAHAHA DISREGARD THAT, I SUCK COCKS 12:08, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

finger, yeah.--xoxo 15:52, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Misconduct because giving Iscariot the benefit of the doubt shakes any trust I had in Nubis's judgement! Seriously though this whole case is actually the first I have ever seen that should be counted as vandalism, there is no possible way it can be regarded as good faith. --Honestmistake 12:18, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

You just nearly gave me a heart attack. I thought for a second that you had been promoted. Thankfully you haven't been, so ruling in the same fashion as a sysop is vandalism. See you on A/VB! --HAHAHA DISREGARD THAT, I SUCK COCKS 12:37, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

I won't rule on the VB case but this something people have been bitchslapped for in the past. Don't do it.--– Nubis ^NWO 13:46, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Feel free to rule, I won't hold it against you either way... Its not like you can really ban me for a first offense ;) --Honestmistake 18:13, 17 December 2008 (UTC)