UDWiki:Administration/Misconduct: Difference between revisions

From The Urban Dead Wiki
Jump to navigationJump to search
 
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Shortcut|[[A/M]]}}
{{Shortcut|[[A/M]]}}
{{Moderationnav}}
{{Administrationnav}}


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.  
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==
==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.
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.  
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.
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 [[UDWiki:Administration/Misconduct/Archive|Archive]].
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 [[UDWiki:Administration/Misconduct/Archive|Archive]].


==Administrative Abilities==
==Administrative Abilities==
Line 32: Line 32:
[[Example page|Sysop]] seems to have deleted [[Example page|Bad Page]], but I can't find it in the Archives of either the Deletion or Speedy Deletion pages. The [[Special:Log|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 -- [[Example page|Reporter]] 13:42, 28 Oct 2005 (BST)
[[Example page|Sysop]] seems to have deleted [[Example page|Bad Page]], but I can't find it in the Archives of either the Deletion or Speedy Deletion pages. The [[Special:Log|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 -- [[Example page|Reporter]] 13:42, 28 Oct 2005 (BST)
:The deletion was asked through my talk page. I give my [[Example page|Talk page]] as proof of this. -- [[Example page|Sysop]] 13:42, 28 Oct 2005 (BST)
:The deletion was asked through my talk page. I give my [[Example page|Talk page]] as proof of this. -- [[Example page|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. -- [[Example page|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? -- [[Example page|Sysop2]] 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? -- [[Example page|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... [[Example page|Sysop]] 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... [[Example page|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. -- [[Example page|Sysop2]] 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. -- [[Example page|Sysop2]] 13:42, 28 Oct 2005 (BST)


== Before Reporting Misconduct ==
== Before Reporting Misconduct ==
Line 43: Line 43:


==Misconduct Cases Currently Under Consideration==
==Misconduct Cases Currently Under Consideration==
<!--When there are no cases currently under consideration, place " ''There are no cases currently under consideration.'' " below. -->
''There are no cases under consideration.''
===[[User:Hagnat|Hagnat]]===
For banning Sexylegsread for a week over his signature and editing it without giving him the full week to change it. While the week ban was the proper escalation not giving him the week to change it (if it even breaks the "formatting clause") is wrong. The sig does link to the user page and isn't any more annoying than Hag's fake not signed comment signature.
 
Sexylegsread should be given the week to change it and asked to shorten the length of it so it is less likely to wrap around to the next row, but he shouldn't be banned from having that sig. Hagnat was wrong to bring the case and carry out the punishment when it is at a ban without input from other sysops since it isn't active vandalism. Just the fact that you did that in the first place is misconduct. --{{User:Nubis/sig}} 23:40, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
:Well, technically, 42 minutes... --{{User:A Helpful Little Gnome/Sig}} 23:58, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
::The fact that he did it in the first place is wrong though.--{{User:Nubis/sig}} 00:01, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
:::Aye, but he did at least unban him. --{{User:A Helpful Little Gnome/Sig}} 00:03, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
 
What part of the policy is not clear? ''"The handle portion of your signature must link to your user page or one its subpages <b><u>so that it is easy for readers to learn more about the person behind the signature</u></b>."'' Having the link buried in a sea spam letters is in clear violation of "so it is easy to learn more about the person behind the signature".
 
Therefore, hagnat interpreted the violation correctly. He did not, however, interpret the ''procedure'' or the "sentence" correctly. The procedure is very clear: SLR had a week to fix it after being warned before getting banned. --[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 04:45, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
:I was banned for 10 hours, not 42 minutes. Hagnat didn't get the IP block. Also, it wasn't buried in a sea of spam, it was every sixth "d". Equating to 1/6 of my sig. Also, the policy is not good enough. Also, hagnat had no right to edit my sig in the first place, regardless of if I was being a troll or not. Also, Hagnat had no right to block me in the first place, as he didnt go through the proper avenues, he just banned me. He should have put it up on A/VB and waited for another sysop. So, 1. Hagnat edited my userspace without needing to (my sig, violation of policy or not, did not break any page or the wiki therefore did not require editing from anyone other than myself) 2. Hagnat banned me without using the proper avenues and 3. Hagnat didn't give me the week that the policy entails. Seems like 3 counts of misconduct to me.--{{User:Sexylegsread/sig}} 05:08, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
 
Read has been pushing [http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php?title=User%3ASexylegsread%2Fsig&diff=1372677&oldid=1372560 the sig policy] deliberately. The week to change the sig is there to give people who are '''off line''' a chance to change their sig (especially sigs that arn't templated). There is nothing in the policy disallowing someone else from editing templated sigs (because they are accessible to editing by anyone) to bring them in line with policy, especially sigs that are all over the wiki, like Read's. Hagnat brought it into line, and gave Read a polite (non-escalation) warning about making the user link obvious, and yet Read went right back and did it again. That deserves the next escalation, which is a week ban, which does not require approval by other sysop, although it does need reporting on A/VB so that it can be reviewed, which Hagnat did. '''Not misconduct''' <small>-- [[User:Boxy|<span style="color: Red">boxy</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Boxy|<span style="color: Red">talk</span>]] • [[The Rules|teh rulz]]</sup> 05:30 1 February 2009 (BST)</small>
:You are pathetic. You would have answered this whole situation a lot differently if this wasn't me, only a fool would think otherwise.--{{User:Sexylegsread/sig}} 08:27, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
:No, hagnat didn't have business editing it. It's [[UDWiki:Specific_Case_Editing_Guidelines#User:_and_User_talk:_pages|basic page ownership]]. It's a subpage of his userpage. The sig policy even talks about it in the [[UDWiki:Administration/Policy_Discussion/Signature_Policy#Reason|beginning]]. You'll also note that the policy mentions editing someone else's sig only when it seriously impairs the operation of the wiki. The way the Punishment section is written, you're not supposed to edit it even if it ''is'' deemed vandalism, it's the owner's job to do that after he's unbanned. --[[User:Midianian|Midianian]]<small><sup>&#124;[[User talk:Midianian|T]]&#124;[[Developing Suggestions|DS]]&#124;[[:Category:Recently Closed Suggestions|C:RCS]]&#124;</sup></small> 10:48, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
::No, Midianian, this is not "basic page ownership", because this doesn't just affect the user's own page, but every page he's ever signed on, including heaps of other user's owned pages (talk pages). This sig is included hundreds of times across all parts of the wiki. Read had been approached about his sig not complying with the policy, and fobbed it off. Hagnat made an edit to it to make it comply with the policy, and left a polite message about it. Read replaced the with another that was equally as hard to determine who was signing (you need to mouseover  all the spam d's until you find one that links to the actual userpage). He even [http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php?title=UDWiki_talk:Administration/Vandal_Banning/Archive/2009_01&diff=prev&oldid=1377472 admits that he's deliberately exploiting what he sees as a loophole]. If you want to argue that Hagnat had no right to edit the sig, then vandal banning is the place to go, but given that his edit was clearly a good faith attempt to ensure that the sig complied with the sig policy, it's not vandalism, and thus the rollback to an equally confusing sig by Read clearly shows his bad faith attempt at creating yet more admin drama (pretty much all he contributes to this wiki any more) <small>-- [[User:Boxy|<span style="color: Red">boxy</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Boxy|<span style="color: Red">talk</span>]] • [[The Rules|teh rulz]]</sup> 12:01 1 February 2009 (BST)</small>
:::No, really, read the policy. It is his page. The fact that it's included on many, many pages limits his freedom with it somewhat but it's still his page, and it wasn't breaking the wiki.
:::Hagnat didn't just edit it to comply with the policy. If he'd been worried about reconizability, he could've just added a link to his userpage at the beginning instead of completely reseting the sig. I didn't report him to A/VB because the edit obviously wasn't bad faith. However, it's quite possible for edits to be good faith/Not Vandalism while still being inappropriate and revertable.
:::I'm not disputing that Read was wrong with his sig, but hagnat was also wrong. Two wrongs don't make a right. hagnat shouldn't have edited it unless it was breaking the wiki, impersonation or something like that, and definitely shouldn't have banned him for reverting an edit hagnat shouldn't have done in the first place. Hagnat's actions were excessive and premature. --[[User:Midianian|Midianian]]<small><sup>&#124;[[User talk:Midianian|T]]&#124;[[Developing Suggestions|DS]]&#124;[[:Category:Recently Closed Suggestions|C:RCS]]&#124;</sup></small> 13:13, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
::::You admit that he's obviously wrong with his sig (for the [http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php?title=User%3ASexylegsread%2Fsig&diff=1372677&oldid=1372560 second time] in a couple of days), but want to punish well intentioned wiki users for putting it right  <small>-- [[User:Boxy|<span style="color: Red">boxy</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Boxy|<span style="color: Red">talk</span>]] • [[The Rules|teh rulz]]</sup> 13:30 1 February 2009 (BST)</small>
:::::No, not obviously wrong. It's not against the letter of the policy, only the spirit. And no, I don't want to punish a well intentioned user for putting it right. I want him punished for banning someone who reverted an inappropriate edit. --[[User:Midianian|Midianian]]<small><sup>&#124;[[User talk:Midianian|T]]&#124;[[Developing Suggestions|DS]]&#124;[[:Category:Recently Closed Suggestions|C:RCS]]&#124;</sup></small> 13:59, 1 February 2009 (UTC)


To be honest, we don't need to wikilawyer over the exact wording of the signature policy. The sig was likely to overlap into a section line (hence breaking formatting) and made it difficult to discern who the original user was. It was a blatant attempt to exploit a loophole it the wiki. If read hadn't known that it was breaking the rules then this would have a case but he knew that the signature was in violation of the signature policies yet still '''reverted it back to its original form'''. This makes it bad-faith and thus means Hagnat's actions were '''Not Misconduct'''.--{{User:The General/sig}} 13:33, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
==Concluded Misconduct Cases==
:He '''didn't''' revert it back to it's original form. He tried to bring it more in-line with the sig policies "guidelines". So he failed, according to everyone, he still tried. Hagnat should have let him know that it was still against the rules, not bringing out the hammer.--<font face="Pristina"><span style="color: DarkMagenta">Suicidal Angel -</span> [[User_talk:Suicidalangel|<span style="color: DarkGreen">Help</span>]] [[Project_Mentor|<span style="color: Black">needed?</span>]]</font> 14:45, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
Check the [[UDWiki:Administration/Misconduct/Archive|Archive]] for concluded Misconduct cases.
::It comes down to whether or not Hagnat abused his sysop privileges by banning me, and not following proper wiki conduct. He banned me, without complying to the policy. I didn't revert it back to the one hagnat had a problem with, I removed a bunch of the links. If that isn't good enough, hagnat doesn't have the right to ban me, he just has the right to say "no, thats not good enough again", and perhaps revert the edit. Banning was ridiculous and over the top, and an abuse of sysop powers. Regardless of his "intentions" as boxy claims, abusing your power as a system operator is Misconduct. This is a clear cut case, as he violated policy. --{{User:Sexylegsread/sig}} 14:55, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
:::You were attempting to alter it just enough that it passed through the letter rules while still being in breach of the spirit. Hagnat should have got consensus before handing out a week ban but he did not "need" to do so before handing out the ban.--{{User:The General/sig}} 16:42, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 04:55, 30 April 2018

Administration Services

Sysop List (Check) | Guidelines | Policies (Discussion) | Promotions (Bureaucrat) | Re-Evaluations

Deletions (Scheduling) | Speedy Deletions | Undeletions | Vandal Banning (Bots) | Vandal Data (De-Escalations)

Protections (Scheduling) | Move Requests | Arbitration | Misconduct | Demotions | Discussion | Sysop Archives

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

There are no cases under consideration.

Concluded Misconduct Cases

Check the Archive for concluded Misconduct cases.

Retrieved from "http://wiki.urbandead.com//index.php?title=UDWiki:Administration/Misconduct&oldid=2352252"