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

User:Cyberbob240

Now real life has let me go for a morning I have the time to write this one up.

A new scheduled deletion was proposed by Cyberbob on 12:18, 26 November 2009 (UTC). The Deletions Scheduling page states very clearly:

"Votes will occur in the same general manner, and like normal deletion requests will be voted on for two (2) weeks, as judged by the initial datestamp."

Anyone who even has the most basic grasp of English can see that the time that deletion should be open is two weeks, meaning that the proposed deletion should have been closed at 12:18, 10th December 2009.

Why then did Cyberbob remove the vote with nearly 12 hours left to vote?

I took the matter up with Cyberbob on IRC at the time and he replied that:

"<Cyberbob> It's not an exact TO THE EXACT MINUTE thing you know".

As we all know, it is to the full extent of the time limit, and not whenever someone feels like it's had enough time decides to close it. The time limit in this case is clearly two weeks and would therefore end at the time I mentioned above.

There was then the following exchange:

<Iscariot> You aren't going to put back a vote you have removed early to give the community a chance to vote on it, especially given the downtime earlier?

<Cyberbob> The community's had plenty of chance

<Cyberbob> That thing's had more votes on it than almost every other one in the archives

It is not up to Cyberbob to make a decision as to when the community has had enough time to vote on a proposal. Deciding in such a manner would be an act of moderation, as a sysop he should be enforcing the will of the community, which in this case is clear to be two full weeks.

Cyberbob will no doubt bring forth previous cases where scheduled deletion votes were closed early, however people going against the rules and not being caught for it in the past does not mean that such an act is permissible. If a page blanking was missed and the user responsible not escalated, it would not mean that continued page blanking would be fine. The guidelines on the page are clear, two weeks, Cyberbob did not allow two weeks, and when told refused to correct his error.

Now you're probably wondering why I didn't just revert Cyberbob's edits and let the community have the rest of its time to vote. DDR suggested the same thing on IRC. For a start I couldn't undo the edits to the protected pages Cyberbob had incorrectly edited, also he responded to DDR's suggestion with:

<Cyberbob> yes please do, the arbitration case will be ever so much fun

I had no time to engage in an arbitration case brought for bad faith reasons.

What we have here is Cyberbob closing a vote almost a day early (12 hours that he closed it before time coupled with the 9 hours of wiki downtime we had on the same day), a vote that he clearly has a vested interest in (his wanting to reduce the threshold for image deletions is widely known), and closing a very close vote (only two votes would have been required to make the proposal fail) to ensure his preferred outcome.

I therefore accuse Cyberbob of editing a protected page before time using the precedent established when Nubis was found guilty of de-escalating me early against policy. The time limit is clear and based on the remarks from the precedent "rules are rules" and he should have waited to edit the Deletion Schedule until that time. The proposal should be put back into voting for the appropriate length of time at the same time of day to allow further users to vote on it.

Or shall we allow a system where sysops can propose policies and scheduled events and close them whenever they choose, regardless of the stated time limits, to ensure their favoured outcome? -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 07:18, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

I was wondering whether you would actually bring this case. You didn't disappoint. Cyberbob  Talk  07:25, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

RL dude, got on top of me like a drunk fat girl at a keg party.... :/ -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 07:32, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

I can sympathise, most of the second half of November was like a waking nightmare for me. :( Cyberbob  Talk  07:40, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Can I get in on the RL haet? I don has exams, jus' werk do'.-- ¯\(°_o)/¯ 16:35, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Not misconduct - timezones are confusing. There had been one contribution to the page in the 10 days prior to the closing of this vote, and that was 3 days before it was closed. No harm, no foul... the community had clearly had it's say -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 11:52 18 December 2009 (BST)

Brace for impact >_< Cyberbob  Talk  12:20, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Not misconduct - As boxy. I like it when other people give me numbers. 16:29, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Not Misconduct - As above. Cheese 16:40, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

I got a warning one time for doing shit outside of the proper time span. Misconduct.-- ¯\(°_o)/¯ 16:44, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Misconduct I never feel cycling something you've proposed in the first place is good form, let alone early. I hope you get one hell of a wrist slapping. --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 16:59, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

lol 12 hours out of 336 when it hadn't been touched for 36 (and before that not for 96) sure is pretty early Cyberbob  Talk  17:02, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Just you wait, you're going to get such a slapping when The General and The Rooster rule misconduct. Oh no wait. --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 17:06, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

DDR and Red Hawk One? Cyberbob  Talk  17:11, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

50/50 Split I reckon--Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 17:20, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Maybe. DDR can be fickle sometimes. Cyberbob  Talk  17:21, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

>:( -- ¯\(°_o)/¯ 17:30, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

What am I looking at here exactly Cyberbob  Talk  17:34, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Just a comparison. I did something in the wrong time span, it got me in trouble. Same thing here, only you're doing it early instead of late. Shame on you.-- ¯\(°_o)/¯ 17:38, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Hey you know instead of being a little bitch about it you could maybe help set a new precedent in line with how you think things should be Cyberbob  Talk  17:41, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Er hang on a sec, neither the A/VB case nor the Misconduct case from that situation were ruled against you. What are you going on about? Nevermind, found the one you're talking about. That's a pretty damn pathetic warning - I can't believe you wouldn't take this chance to avoid bullshit rulings like that happening again. Cyberbob  Talk  17:46, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

I'll think more after I go to sleep. 4 hours in two days makes me dumber than usual.-- ¯\(°_o)/¯ 08:46, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Forgot about the case :/ Not Misconduct - As Boxy, and since Iscariot is known to forge logs there is no real proof Cyberbob refused to put the vote back up. And, regarding SA's bone, SA was warned not because he closed the vote early, but because he did it to force his own vote (which wasn't compliant with guidelines) into the system. Doesn't apply here. --

 

 

 

 

09:26, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Still yet to provide any proof that I'm guilty of this supposed forgery you continue to hark on about? Have you also told the children that you were in the channel where the conversation took place and saw Bob refuse to put the vote back up? -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 11:19, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

But forcing his own way into the system is technically what CB is doing, if unintentionally, you twit. And I didn't close it early. It was late. You're going to rule without properly reading and comprehending the shit you're using as evidence? You idiot ;)

But seriously, I was warned for the exact same thing. This entire thing is misconduct, but not really worth much more than a slap on the wrist and told to pay more attention to time spans. Just because shit is confusing doesn't absolve him of it, merely lessens the potential punishment.-- ¯\(°_o)/¯ 13:07, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Argh but it doesn't matter because again it wasn't the timespan which got you warned... --

 

 

 

 

22:26, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

"But forcing his own way into the system is technically what CB is doing, if unintentionally, you twit". Same. Exact. Thing.-- ¯\(°_o)/¯ 22:34, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

That wasn't the issue. You were deliberately forcing your own not guidelines compliant vote into the system by means of ninjaing it in at the last minute and protecting it before Iscariot could revert- which you'd already had an edit-war over days before. Yours wouldn't have been vandalism/misconduct (the latter is where it should have been placed imo) if there was no idiotic intent- but there was and that's why it was ruled as such. --

 

 

 

 

22:59, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

What the fuck are you drinking tonight DDR? Yes, it was the issue. The thing you just described is me trying to force shit into the system. Just like CB did by closing the vote at a time that was too early, specifically when his side was still ahead. -- ¯\(°_o)/¯ 00:59, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Sigh. You just won't get it. Nvm. --

 

 

 

 

01:01, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

inorite?-- ¯\(°_o)/¯ 01:02, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Agree to disagree. But we can still make love yeah? --

 

 

 

 

01:04, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Oh please. I don't need to be able to prove it to use it in my ruling. All that matters is who knows It's true- everyone, including myself and you :) --

 

 

 

 

11:26, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

I didn't think you could prove your lies, thanks for confirming that. Also, you seem to be avoiding the point that you were present in the channel when Bob said he wouldn't put it back and you're saying there's no proof of that in your ruling.... -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 11:34, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Oh but my memory is oh so terrible and my logs are oh-so-tarnished with fraud, so why should I bother reading through them? --

 

 

 

 

11:39, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Since Ross asked so nicely, (minor) Misconduct. Cyberbob appears to have been aware that he was going against the rules in this instance, so it is technically misconduct on his part. All the same, the likelyhood anyone would have bothered voting in the remaining timespan is extremely low, and in the equally low likelyhood this goes through I reccomend nothing more than a warning.

In light of this, may I reccomend we have an official timesheet for administrative votes, so these sort of things don't happen again?--~ Red Hawk One ^{Talk | space for lease} 22:09, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Summary

So, 4 not misconducts against 2 Misconducts. Unless by some miracle both The Rooster and The General both rule this is going to turn out Not Miscunduct. Thanks for your time. --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 10:34, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Great, we now have a precedent that allows sysops to close votes early when the result is how they like. Expect the 'crat promotion to be closed early if someone gets within two votes of Boxy. It is wrong to tell people they have a certain amount of time to vote and then close voting early, not even the Bush administration stooped that low to rig their re-election. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 11:21, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

:/ Someone needs some more outside time. --

 

 

 

 

11:24, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

I will be taking the full time consider all factors before voting on all proposals, policies and elections on this wiki from now on, I will be basing this on the displayed time on the page in question. Are you going to tell me it is right to close a vote early and deny me the chance of voting when the page clearly shows I have spare time? -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 11:32, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Yep! Cause we just made a "precedent" for it!! =D --

 

 

 

 

11:36, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Speaking of which, when are you going to begin meatpuppeting Ross into crat? I'm so giddy!! --

 

 

 

 

11:38, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

There's no point, a sysop will rollback the edits and then close the vote early, you've just ruled that they can do this whenever they choose. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 11:48, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

You idiot -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 12:11 20 December 2009 (BST)

"This is going to turn out" NOT "this voting is closed." Jesus. --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 12:15, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

I'll tell you waht ISC, I'll even go and ask the remaining sops to rule. --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 12:17, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

There's no point. Even if they both rule, and it's a tie, it'll be Not Misconduct.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 12:19, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Well theres also red hawk one. So theoretically it still could go the other way. Even though Rooster doesn't misconduct people and the general is inactive. But as Iscariot is concerned about procedure, Ive asked all three to comment if they so wish. --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 12:21, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

I know I'm a bit late here and it probably won't make any difference but misconduct. The guidelines say that the vote should have been closed 12 hours later, Cyberbob closed it early. Therefore, Cyberbob broke the rules. Simple.--The General ^{T Sys U! P! F!} 02:39, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

HA HA HA OH WOW I DID NOT SEE THAT COMING!-- ¯\(°_o)/¯ 09:28, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Your first edit since October was to rule on this case? Get the fuck out. Cyberbob  Talk  09:53, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, sigh. --

 

 

 

 

12:23, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

No, I am a Sysop and therefore I am permitted to rule on this case. I am not going to get into petty arguments over this and so I will not be responding unless a valid argument (I.e. Something beyond "Get the fuck out") is given.--The General ^{T Sys U! P! F!} 21:28, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

"You're doing that thing again where you edit all of twice every 2 or so months" warrant a response?-- ¯\(°_o)/¯ 23:19, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

No, It's okay that he does that, cause he also acknowledges it, doesn't care and refuses to change. So that makes it okay. --

 

 

 

 

23:26, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes. I know I'm inactive and I apologise. I won't make any promises because I know you (quite justifiably) won't believe them. All I'll say is that it's better twice a month than not at all, IMHO and it doesn't affect my decision in this case.--The General ^{T Sys U! P! F!} 23:33, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, about that. No, it's not better. Just sayin' -- ¯\(°_o)/¯ 01:47, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

^^^ Cyberbob  Talk  05:52, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Got to say here that it is clear that Bob has broken the rules in a most horrendous manner. Demotion is too good and he should in fact be taken outside and shot!

On a sensible note; its 12 hours people.... chances are if he hadn't done this then it would have been filed at least 12 hours late, would the entire sysop team then be here for dereliction of duty? Put simply; a sysop should not act early in any case that may prove contentious to any (vaguely) sensible user, this falls well short of that line. Bob should have left it alone and archived it when he was next online... he didn't but in this case it makes no real (plausible) difference so is worth nothing more (or less) than a slap on the wrist.--Honestmistake 01:53, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

And a good slapping at that!-- ¯\(°_o)/¯ 01:56, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

In summary this case is moronic. We shouldn't be hawking over the chance to misconduct/ban anyone who makes the slightest procedural mistake. While I recognize that some of the people who ruled misconduct had valid reasons for doing so, I feel that a more common-sense approach should be used in these kinds of cases. Rules schmules. "In the spirit" let me hear it.--_GANG Giles Sednik _CAPD 19:01, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Another Summary

An exciting 4 for and 4 against. Will rooster rule? Personally I doubt it. But we can wait a while yet. --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 09:45, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

It's been over a week now...? Cyberbob  Talk  02:51, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Why not just close this one early too bob, in theory it'll mean that you have precedent to back your actions. xoxo 03:11, 31 December 2009 (UTC)