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)

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

Conndraka

Conndraka used his position as a badge of authority where it has no bearing on the case. Sysops don't have any special authority when ruling on the dupe status of suggestions, yet Con insists on his non-author re: being valid because of his sysop status. If arbitration is to decide the fate of that suggestion, arbies is the place to do it, not the suggestion page itself, where people who may disagree have no right of reply, or ability to choose an impartial arbitrator -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 12:07 15 April 2009 (BST)

Drama-fest please. Seriously though, is a misconduct case necessary here? Seems like a minor misunderstanding about syops abilities to me. Any personal issues playing a role here?--Thadeous Oakley 13:17, 15 April 2009 (BST)

The Suggestion page itself gives certain abilities to sysops only. I was asked for an opinion by the Author and stated it under the appropriate heading. Conndraka^{mod TAZM CFT} 13:29, 15 April 2009 (BST)

And those certain abilities do not include the ability to decide whether something is a dupe or not. --Midianian^{¦T¦DS¦SP¦} 13:30, 15 April 2009 (BST)

I mearly followed what was said under [DUPE|http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php?title=Suggestions:Cycling_Instructions&action=edit&section=2] and since a valid statement had already been stricken improperly (as it was at the request of the author) this is merely nothing more than Iscariot (et al) throwing a fit because a suggestion they don't like would go to Peer Approved. when there is in fact enough differences to invalidate the DUPE vote. Obviously this is harassment in an effort to derail the conversation and voting on the suggestion. Conndraka^{mod TAZM CFT} 13:36, 15 April 2009 (BST)

Neither do they include an ability to invalidate Dupe votes if you think the suggestion is not a dupe. --Midianian^{¦T¦DS¦SP¦} 14:07, 15 April 2009 (BST)

Nowhere in that link does it say anything about posting your opinion as to people's votes on the page. That is instructions for what to do when cycling a suggestion. You cycled nothing, so it doesn't apply, at all. You weren't acting as an arbitrator, because they are chosen by both parties, and consider the case after a discussion on A/A. You weren't acting in an official sysop capacity, because they have no special authority to rule on dupe cases... What you did do, however, was specifically use your sysop status to try to force your opinion of what is and is not a valid dupe vote onto the suggestions page. It may be a popular opinion, but you have no more right than any other person to comment on it in a non-author Re:, and you should know that -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 14:09 15 April 2009 (BST)

Quoting from the Voting Rules that is displayed at the bottom of every suggestion in progress:

Comments

• Re may be used to comment on a vote. Only the original author and the person being REd can comment. Comments are restricted to a single comment per vote, and it is expected that Re comments be as short as possible. Reing every kill vote is considered abuse of the Re comment. A Re does not count as a vote, and any subsequent discussion not part of the Re comment should be held on the discussion page if there is any extended commenting.
• Note is used by System Operators to invalidate trolling-based votes. Only Sysops may remove troll-based votes and they do so with a strikeout in order to preserve the trolling removal for posterity. The voter may contest the strikeout with the Sysop that struck their vote out on the discussion page. Only a System Operator may remove a strikeout.

Conndraka was not invalidating a troll-based vote. He was commenting on a suggestion. The section of note here is "Only the original author and the person being REd can comment." Rosslessness was the person being REd and CaptainVideo was the original author. Conndraka was neither of these two parties. He shouldn't have commented and his addition were blanked. He then unstruck the section, invoked his status as a sysop and made a longer paragraph attacking the person performing routine maintenance, anyone want to point me to the good faith bit of these edits? Also suggestions author are not, do not and will never have the option of overriding the voting rules at their whim, if they were I'd have the forts wiped off the map as a peer reviewed suggestion because I'd ignore certain rules that would guarantee its success and according to Conndraka I'd be allowed to do this as the author.

That being said this case is entirely pointless and I'll now spoil the ending for all viewers. Boxy is classed as voting misconduct as he brought the case (Nubis' precedent), Link doesn't get involved, SA votes misconduct in a long paragraph, Cheese votes not misconduct with a flimsy justification, Nubis votes not misconduct and comments on my post and The General votes not misconduct. The only vote that will really change in that is Cheese's which he'll do just so he can add a section about me being wrong in his ruling. Regardless the entire result will be a useless warning at the most which given what we've seen in the past will do nothing to actually improve the conduct of the sysop in question. So why are we wasting time with this? -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 14:32, 15 April 2009 (BST)

OK that was pretty awesome. Cyberbob 14:54, 15 April 2009 (BST)

You spoiler >:0! Though I have to admit I don't see Conndraka getting warned either. The nature of the complaint is way too thin on substance for that.--Thadeous Oakley 15:48, 15 April 2009 (BST)

How am I supposed to make a large paragraph on my vote with a small case like this?--Mr. Angel, Help needed? 20:17, 15 April 2009 (BST)

Nubis votes not misconduct. This isn't a sysop only ability. This could be handled on A/VB and on there I could see voting Vandalism. We all know that Conn probably couldn't wield his position as a sysop as a badge of authority even if he wanted to. --– Nubis ^NWO 16:20, 15 April 2009 (BST)

Umm thanks??? Conndraka^{mod TAZM CFT} 21:45, 15 April 2009 (BST)