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:Misanthropy

This has just been brought to my attention. Since when do we accept off-site requests for deletion? The added bit for crit 7 states: If a user leaves a sysop a note on their (i.e the sysop's) talk page requesting deletion of a page that falls under Crit 7, the Sysop may delete the page on sight, making clear in the edit summary that the user requested it via talk page. Off-site is definitely not the sysop's talk page and even with the newest part (As of January 2010, this scheduling now includes pages that the author has blanked or replaced with text indicating a desire to be deleted. However, pages used as inclusions (such as many templates) are excluded from this criterion.) it doesn't come close. If Iscariot wishes the page deleted, he can come request it in person or someone can provide a screenshot of his request.

This could easily be incorporated into the existing scheduled deletions but until it is, it's a breach of the guidelines for deletion and as a result I believe this is misconduct. -- Cheese 17:17, 6 May 2010 (BST)

For Relevancy, also look here. --Thadeous Oakley 17:26, 6 May 2010 (BST)

this is some serious hairsplitting even for you cheese Cyberbob  Talk  17:38, 6 May 2010 (BST)

People have been brought here for less. =/ I don't like the idea of things being requested "off-site" and there being no record here of it. Not saying I don't trust Mis, but I don't like the precedent that it would set. -- Cheese 17:49, 6 May 2010 (BST)

Gah, I hate cases like this since it really shouldn't have been brought up at all and just makes things more difficult. The way I see it, Misanthropy did exceed his authority technically (if someone wants to cite precedent to the contrary, I'd love seeing it), but he was most certainly acting in good faith in doing so. I have no doubt that Iscariot requested this deletion, and that had Iscariot been forced to request it officially, more drama would have ensued. There's no way Misanthropy should be getting a warning or worse out of this, since he was acting in the best interests of the wiki and its users in doing what he did. But Cheese is right that it could create a dangerous precedent, so establishing that it's not the right thing to do is still a good idea. Thus, Misconduct with no punishment. —Aichon— 21:05, 6 May 2010 (BST)

You know what? No. This could be a dangerous precedent, but only when it's abused, and we have this page for those situations. Misanthropy didn't abuse it at all, so I'm changing my mind. Not Misconduct. —Aichon— 22:04, 7 May 2010 (BST)

Sorta... But you can always ignore precedents, and I think ross summed it up pretty well too; I'd agree if Iscariot hadn't had every single other page in his userspace deleted, but given that, its totally feasible that Izzy, an IRC regular, asked Mis, another IRC regular, to delete it. Izzy never made a contribution after getting said pages deleted since he's publivly left, doesn't want to come back just to get page deleted. There's no (incredibly) bad blood between the two, etc, etc. I mean, I agree that Izzy should have had to come here to have the page deleted, but IMO that's a different story to whether Mis should be punished for it. --

 

 

 

 

00:50, 8 May 2010 (BST)

dude he said not misconduct, dunno why you're arguing with him Cyberbob  Talk  16:34, 8 May 2010 (BST)

What do you reckon then bob? -- Cheese 16:49, 8 May 2010 (BST)

that it's ddr being ddr Cyberbob  Talk  17:26, 8 May 2010 (BST)

This is pathetic. I guess you should Misconduct Link for unbanning me before my self-ban was up, because I asked him via IRC, and take Suicidalangel to A/VB because he edited my userpage and my talk page rules to say I was away cause I was homeless, because I asked him via IRC. Go on, consistency please Cheese. Nah, that's cool, those two don't annoy iscariot so why would you bother?

Another fine example of going by the letter of the law rather than the spirit of the law, when the user in question was just trying to help out. Can't wait for more cases like this to weed out the new op's "ignore the rules to help" attitude so they become butthurt rule-nazies like the rest of us ops became. --

 

 

 

 

01:16, 7 May 2010 (BST)

Jesus H Christ, I'm grouchy when I've just woken up. I still maintain the first paragraph though >=[ --

 

 

 

 

09:56, 7 May 2010 (BST)

WHAT THE FUCK IF YOU ASKED I'D HAVE GOTTEN ONSITE NOTICE. I don't have IRC access right now but hold this case for a day or two and I'll have Iz come on and formally request the deletion here. 13:20, 7 May 2010 (BST)

I've typically always been against claiming petty bias, but when its something as totally uncalled for and irrational as this case, it has to be made. Bias about enforcing the scheduled deleting that he personally passed, much? There I said it. Lols. Either way, does Izz still go on IRC? I could get such confirmation if you'd like. --

 

 

 

 

13:31, 7 May 2010 (BST)

The reason I didn't ask for an onsite notice at the time was because I didn't know about it. The first I heard about the user page going was when Thad posted on Undeletions. I fail to see how this is petty bias. =/ Mis deleted a page without a proper request being filed. This is nothing personal again him and like I said it's not that I don't trust him, I just don't like the idea that someone could swan onto IRC pretending to be that user and ask for a page to be deleted. At least here we have checkuser and the like to confirm that person is who they say they are. I don't want Mis to get a punishment, I just want it to be made clear that deleting something because you got asked offsite is not on. If they want it deleted, they should come here and post it like everyone else, it only takes about 30 seconds. -- Cheese 14:06, 8 May 2010 (BST)

Sent him a message on another forum to ask him to come round. If/when he does, drop his useless piece of piss plz? 16:18, 8 May 2010 (BST)

No...=/ I don't see us dropping vandal cases if the vandal goes back and undoes it all. You really can't see my problem with this can you? -- Cheese 16:48, 8 May 2010 (BST)

Your problem is that a deletion was done without an onsite request, which you see as misconduct, while I see it as falling completely within Crit 7. If the original deletion is backed up with the author returning to verify that he did in fact place the request, puts down a formal request to have the page deleted again, I fail to see what's wrong. 16:53, 8 May 2010 (BST)

Even if it is backed up, you still deleted the page because of an offsite request which I think is a big no-no. -- Cheese 16:54, 8 May 2010 (BST)

It was requested for deletion by the author/sole contributor. At no point is there a clause specifying that such requests need to be done on the wiki itself. 17:02, 8 May 2010 (BST)

I could be wrong but I'm pretty sure the Crit 7 by proxy says If a user leaves a sysop a note on their (i.e the sysop's) talk page requesting deletion of a page that falls under Crit 7, the Sysop may delete the page on sight, making clear in the edit summary that the user requested it via talk page. I think that makes it pretty clear where it should be. -- Cheese 17:13, 8 May 2010 (BST)

Criterion 7, Author Edit Only: The page has been requested for speedy deletion by the original author, and has been edited only by its author. Note that edits by adbots or vandals and reverts caused by them do not count.

The page was, in fact, requested for deletion by its author. That criterion states nothing about the need to use the wiki as the locale for requesting anything. 17:41, 8 May 2010 (BST)

To be eligible for speedydeletions, a page must be "listed on UDWiki:Administration/Speedy Deletions", and a scheduled crit 7 must be done on your talk page. An IRC request neither fits speedy or scheduled deletions -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 06:19 9 May 2010 (BST)

Go read this. -- Cheese 17:45, 8 May 2010 (BST)

The only thing there that you might be trying to point me towards is that a notice needs to be made containing a link, a time stamp and a reason for deletion, in which case I'll point you here. Aside from that, nothing you're actually showing me states anything contrary to what I've said. 17:52, 8 May 2010 (BST)

All Deletion Requests must contain the following information in order to be considered: A link to the page in question. Preferably bolded for visibility. A reason for deletion. This should be short and to the point. A signed datestamp. This can be easily done by adding Cheese 17:55, 8 May 2010 (BST) to the end of your request. You posted a notice of deletion not a request. There was no request posted on the page by Iscariot, neither was the page able to be deleted under one of the scheduled deletion conditions so therefore the following bit come into play: Any deletion request that does not contain these three pieces of information will not be considered, and will be removed by a system operator. Since the request isn't on the page, it's not technically been requested and you should have declined to delete it and told him to come here and request it in person just like anybody else would have to. -- Cheese 17:55, 8 May 2010 (BST)

Not Misconduct Iscariot had publicly requested the deletions of a great many pages and made it abundantly clear he was removing himself from the community. Of course if we get a comment from iscariot saying he didn't request it then its misconduct in my opinion. Meh. --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 13:35, 7 May 2010 (BST)

Misconduct - no punishment, keep the page unless it's requested properly. We can't have user's pages being requested for deletion off site -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 06:33 8 May 2010 (BST)

Ya, even if not misconduct, keep page undeleted? I would think so. --

 

 

 

 

06:32, 9 May 2010 (BST)

Under the letter of the law it's misconduct (it's even the goddamn example at the top), but as boxy, there shouldn't be a punishment.-- Adward  14:18, 9 May 2010 (BST)

Except that, unlike the example and what you said previously but deleted, he did make a note of it on A/SD. Also, it was the correct user requesting deletion for their own page, unlike the example. —Aichon— 19:14, 9 May 2010 (BST)

So are we going to close this up then? From what I can see, we have Aichon and Ross saying Not Misconduct, Boxy and presumably Cheese saying Misconduct (although I can't remember if he can rule as he brought the case). That leaves SA, who's been inactive for nearly a month, as well as Red and the Rooster, both of whom stay away from places like A/M. Other than that it's just me, and I have no intention of ruling on a case which started before I was even promoted.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 23:53, 10 May 2010 (BST)

Argh, it's always so hard to remember, but I'm very very sure it's "if you bring the case, you can't rule". --

 

 

 

 

00:46, 11 May 2010 (BST)

Actually sysops can only not rule on cases if they were personally involved beforehand (regardless of whether they brought the case or not). Lucky you have me here to help remind you! :) Cyberbob  Talk  03:07, 11 May 2010 (BST)

Actually, they also can't if they are the target of the case, but thanks for the help. I've trawled through the archives and in fact found all the evidence I need to support that a sysop bringing a case can also vote. So, cheese's counts. --

 

 

 

 

06:37, 11 May 2010 (BST)

Being the target of a case sort of counts as being involved beforehand. Cyberbob  Talk  06:50, 11 May 2010 (BST)