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)

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

Cyberbob (2)

This edit where bob creates a case against a user who had made only one edit (see a/vb, talk:a/bp and the below a/m case). As he has stated himself he has no specific evidence that the user is a sockpuppet and only that it came from an exchange in Newcastle, NSW (see here. Yet in his report bob states that he has "pretty conclusive" evidence that the account is an alt from the "2 Special crowd". When he writes 2 Special bob is intentionally referring to the group 2 Cool in a derogatory manner.

2 Cool is made up of myself and User:Nallan. Bob has been told on several occasions and should be well aware I do not live in Newcastle or even remotely close to it. The fact that he implied that his super secret Checkuser info had me as a major suspect is utter rubbish and is a clear example of bob using sysop only powers (the right to see checkuser information) to further his personal vendetta against me by linking me to sockpuppet allegations. Not to mention that a/vb is certainly not the place to be throwing around defamatory names such as 2 Special in official reports.

This case is about cyberbob slandering my name without reason, and that is something that no user should have to undergo on official reports, by a sysop, regardless of the history between those 2 users. xoxo 05:17, 31 August 2009 (BST)

inb4 "OMG YOO SOW BUTTHURTZ LOLOLOL"--CyberRead240 05:19, 31 August 2009 (BST)

do agree though--CyberRead240 05:19, 31 August 2009 (BST)

Not Misconduct - Boxy has put "official reports" on A/SD calling you 2 stoopid before, any user can make a vandal report, this is A/A material. --DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION-- 05:21, 31 August 2009 (BST)

And for the fact you live in sydney, it's relevant to the case so just put it on there, as I am quite sure you have. --DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION-- 05:22, 31 August 2009 (BST)

dude, bother reading the case. It's about way more than just him calling 2 Cool 2 Special. It's about the fact that he uses information that for privacy reasons is withheld from the general community to imply i did something which he knows full well i didn't do, for no reason other than to make me look bad.--xoxo 05:26, 31 August 2009 (BST)

And yet you and Nick have admitted several times on the wiki that you two get together at each others houses and use the wiki, sometimes whilst drunk. I'm not surprised that Bob, being bob, included you as a suspect. I doubt you are surprised either. Paranoid, yes, but it's also understandable. --DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION-- 05:32, 31 August 2009 (BST)

While they have admitted that, we have already established that the user Buzz Killington wouldnt be for the fun or usage of either of these two because they both voted differently on the Crat election, meaning that if they wanted to gain from this, they would have had more use just changing nick or jeds vote instead. Also, if they were at each others houses, the checkuser would match up with the users house they were staying at.--CyberRead240 05:35, 31 August 2009 (BST)

Making a 2 member wiki group called 2 cool with your IRL best friend and blindly supporting its ideals through thick and thin comes with consequences, one of which is being grouped with each other. --DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION-- 05:38, 31 August 2009 (BST)

For different reasons (my distance, his vote for SA) neither of us is in reality a suspect, so why group us together as suspects? --xoxo 05:42, 31 August 2009 (BST)

Because he's paranoid, hence why he shouldn't have banned it, not why he should be A/M'd for anything else. --DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION-- 05:50, 31 August 2009 (BST)

I've never used my account in newcastle and he has never used his here. We've been present while the other person editing the wiki. However bob specifically states 2 Cool as "pretty conclusively" the sockpuppeteers when one user lives 200km from the exchange in question and the other user voted against boxy. Clearly a personal vendetta when you consider a variety of users are not mentioned in the case, eg you. The fact of the matter is bob has no evidence as to who did it and to state that it is pretty conclusively this guy who lives 200km away or this guy who voted for SA is the very definition of harassment through administration and abuse of sysop powers.--xoxo 05:41, 31 August 2009 (BST)

Hahaha oh dear. You'll be lucky to dodge an A/VB case for this one Jed: "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. " Cyberbob  Talk  05:25, 31 August 2009 (BST)

You dick, you just posted information that doesn't help yourself? Harassment of a user through administration may result in Vandal Escalations, even sysops, is what you just said. You just used Checkuser and found someone in a different city to Jed, yet still posted his name as a suspect.......that is harrassment of a user on an administration page? Are you fucking retarded?--CyberRead240 05:28, 31 August 2009 (BST)

Not to mention it is furthering a personal vendetta......--CyberRead240 05:32, 31 August 2009 (BST)

el oh el Cyberbob  Talk  05:34, 31 August 2009 (BST)

u so crazy--CyberRead240 05:37, 31 August 2009 (BST)

Cyberbob is from Australia.... And he has motive to frame 2 cool peepz, i.e. a history of feuding. So it's obvious he is a PRIME SUSPECT, in fact it just HAS to be him! Well... probably... In any event, BURN THE WITCH!!!!! Then call Scotland Yard, Watson.

The absurd logic above is the very same logic that cyberbob used on his A/VB decision. However, this Misconduct case is frivolous. --WanYao 06:40, 31 August 2009 (BST)

Not Misconduct - Perrsonal attacks are not a sysop power. Creating A/VB cases is not a sysop power. The first case may have had merit, this one does not.--The General ^{T Sys U! P! F!} 09:23, 31 August 2009 (BST)

Not Misconduct Tag, Bob you're it. Conndraka^{mod TAZM CFT} 13:46, 31 August 2009 (BST)

Cyberbob

For permabanning a user without cause. See the case here

If cyberbob can provide proof that the account was a sockpuppet, or if I am missing important facts, then this case will be withdrawn. However, at the time I am presenting this case, there have no such facts or any confirmation of the account being a sock. --WanYao 21:35, 30 August 2009 (BST)

Question: why wait until now to make this case? You've been editing all weekend. Cyberbob  Talk  22:28, 30 August 2009 (BST)

But to answer yours: we know the edit came from a town that a bunch of the other Australian editors either live in or visit regularly, the account made what-was-at-the-time the deciding vote on the bureaucrat election on Boxy as its first edit, and we know that this sort of thing has happened before (see Shakey60). We've permabanned for less, and I did make it rather clear on the A/VB case that if any other sysop thought I was wrong I would be more than happy for them to overrule. Sysops are allowed to rule on their own cases if they see them as being fairly open-and-shut, and have been overruled plenty of times without being Misconducted for it.
It would be extremely funny if every sysop turned out here now and voted Misconduct on me (or whatever) because the case has been up for a good while and they have had ample time to overturn the ruling. Almost every other active sysop has made a number of edits in that time; any one of them could have simply voted Not Vandalism on the case and that would've been that. But hey, I'm not really expecting anything else because staying silent when it counts is what sysops do best! Cyberbob  Talk  22:44, 30 August 2009 (BST)

This is pretty petty, Wan.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 22:53, 30 August 2009 (BST)

This case is anything BUT petty. It has all the appearance of a sysop misusing his powers by prematurely permabanning a user on wholly circumstantial evidence. Bob didn't wait for any other sysops to pipe in before banning the user, either, he just went ahead with the perma. If he'd waited before slamming the ban hammer, there'd have been no case... If anything is "petty", it's your accusation of my pettiness, YK.

As for why I waited... Well, I don't stalk every page of the wiki 24/7... Besides, don't you think it was better that I waited, bob? You always complain about me being "reactionary" and such shyte. So wasn't it a good thing for me give you and other sysops some time to offer up a reponse to A/VB case? Come on, old mate, show some consistency here!! --WanYao 01:10, 31 August 2009 (BST)

Furthermore, check the date stamp, cyberbob. The case has NOT been up for even 2 days. Not everyone stalks to the wiki 24/7 like you, you know... As for the vote being the deciding one, what would have stopped you from backing off on making a final decision until after the VB case had gone through the proper channels? That wouldn't have been a big issue, I'd think... You should have waited until at least one other sysop chimed in.As it is, it appears like you were trying to influence the election -- in favour of one of your buddies, and against users with whom you have a running conflict. Whether or not this is true, it still has the appearance of such... And as a trusted user you ought to be intelligent and prudent enough to avoid such appearances of bias. Sorry if these critiques bug you or something... but they're totally valid. --WanYao 01:20, 31 August 2009 (BST)

A BLOO BLOO BLOO CONSPIRACY EVERYWHERE ALL AROUND US EVERYTHING IS A CONSPIRACY Cyberbob  Talk  02:42, 31 August 2009 (BST)

Sorry but the argument that a sysop should be handicapped based purely on whichever users are involved in something (assuming no conflict of interest obviously) is totally ridiculous. Cyberbob  Talk  02:44, 31 August 2009 (BST)

Typically mature attitude there. Respond to a very serious, and unfortunately very well-founded allegation with idiocy...

Anyway... The argument goes exactly like this: your hands should be tied if there is a potential conflict of interest. That's why it's called a "conflict of interest", old chap.

Now... maybe you're feeling a little... persecuted? Well... Maybe that's because you're doing things that attract attention to yourself? You do a lot of work for the wiki, sure. But so do a lot of other people. And the work you do doesn't make the wiki your personal playground where you can just do as you please, ignoring and bending rules and codes of conduct like Hagnat on methadone. Because that's how you treat the wiki: your own personal sandbox. And any and every user who doesn't agree with you, who challenges the things you do in what you think is your little sandbox, you insult and berate like the petulant, troll-child you are. Well the act is getting mighty stale, Cyberbob. Mighty stale. --WanYao 04:43, 31 August 2009 (BST)

Meth is bad, mmkay. You wont be able to drink alcohol, so whats the point ? Try Vicodin, all the cool guys are doing it. --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{[talk] [wcdz]} 04:53, 31 August 2009 (BST)

:D --WanYao 05:15, 31 August 2009 (BST)

Not Misconduct - To be honest, I haven't made up my mind on whether or not Cyberbob was right in this case but I do believe that it isn't misconduct. He acted, in his opinion, in the best interests of the wiki and I don't believe it was a delibrate abuse of power. An incorrect ruling does not necessarily make it misconduct. I have, however, unbanned Buzz Killington pending input from the other sysops.--The General ^{T Sys U! P! F!} 23:03, 30 August 2009 (BST)

Misconduct - Since when do we ban users because their IP comes from the same city as a three-man clique and a two-year disbanded group? You banned it as a sockpuppet despite its IP being independent of any known user and because you banned it after its first edit you didn't even give it a chance to prove that it wasn't a meatpuppet, by letting it edit other parts of the wiki. I know you didn't act with that intention in mind but I still think you acted too quickly in blaming the 2 cool clique (or even the 'clique' of an entire city). Obviously the account is ridiculously suspect it deserved to be on A/VB, I just don't agree with you assuming bad faith and banning a user on mere speculations. --DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION-- 02:21, 31 August 2009 (BST)

I don't think you should be ruling on this case for the same reason you didn't rule on the A/VB case. You have a pretty obvious conflict of interest here, being probably the most likely user to have done it if it was a sockpuppet. Cyberbob  Talk  02:40, 31 August 2009 (BST)

Also, you say I didn't act with bad intentions in mind but rush on to say that that doesn't matter, and that the fact that I mentioned my belief of one of you guys being the person behind it is what makes this misconduct? Lol. If I was seriously into "blaming" anyone I would have put them up on A/VB too. It was just idle speculation, nothing more and it had little to do with anything except giving you guys an excuse to cry about it. Cyberbob  Talk  02:49, 31 August 2009 (BST)

"You guys". Here you go grouping me with 2 Cool and saying I shouldn't rule, because according to your theory, which you banned the user on, this user was most likely me accessing an account from someone elses house? It's all bullshit, Cyberbob, and read the ruling. You assumed bad faith and banned a user with no evidence to support it being a sockpuppet. Misconduct. --DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION-- 02:54, 31 August 2009 (BST)

You agreed not to rule on the A/VB case for this very reason, did you not? Yes you did. Cyberbob  Talk  02:56, 31 August 2009 (BST)

A case related to the unbanning of a user, and a case related to your actions in banning the user are two different things. Don't get me wrong. I want the user's vote on A/BP struck and banned if a sockpuppet. But at the moment none of us know who the hell this user is and neither do you. --DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION-- 02:59, 31 August 2009 (BST)

It's all the same issue DDR, and you have just as big a conflict of interest in this case as you do in the A/VB case. Cyberbob  Talk  03:01, 31 August 2009 (BST)

I would be if I was any way affiliated with this account, but I'm afraid being in the same city as someone does not actually make them the same person. --DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION-- 03:21, 31 August 2009 (BST)

See I would back down here but your position here is invalidated by the fact that you were happy to not rule on the A/VB case for this very reason, as has been said. Cyberbob  Talk  03:22, 31 August 2009 (BST)

Again, you're twisting what happened and what's been said. I've already explained that I'm ruling on your handling of the case rather than what should have been the outcome of it, the latter of which is a matter of A/VB and is what, as a suspect, I was obliged to follow. Ruling on how you handled the case makes no difference to me either way, there's nothing I could gain from agreeing or disagreeing with it, whereas, as a suspect, there is hypothetically a goal in reversing a ban of a sockpuppet I created. Either way, I'll accept an invalidation of my vote if the sysops deem it necessary. --DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION-- 03:44, 31 August 2009 (BST)

Not Misconduct As The General...Conndraka^{mod TAZM CFT} 13:44, 31 August 2009 (BST) Unsigned "vote" struck. --WanYao 04:47, 31 August 2009 (BST)

Incredible. Cyberbob  Talk  04:59, 31 August 2009 (BST)

Yes, quite... incredible, that is! That a sysop forgot to sign their vote. Well, as long as they come back and sign and stamp their vote properly, where's the problem? Nowhere! So... you can stop your frothing, Cyberbob, everything will be ok. --WanYao 05:14, 31 August 2009 (BST)

stop your frothing cyberbob *posts many hundreds of paranoid and self-righteous words* Cyberbob  Talk  05:15, 31 August 2009 (BST)

No paranoia. Just a straightforward presentation of facts and arguments. It's not my fault you can't follow sentences containing more than 4 words. Perhaps the ritalined-up troll-child will learn to read one day. Perhaps. --WanYao 06:44, 31 August 2009 (BST)

el oh el a bloo bloo --xoxo 07:01, 31 August 2009 (BST)

May I congratulate you Wan on becoming the wikimedia darling for obtuseness and self directed feigned ignorance. What happened was obvious and your bias is showing, and not helping your case at all as you now appear even more juvenile... Conndraka^{mod TAZM CFT} 13:44, 31 August 2009 (BST)

I found it funny- demonstrates your attitude to addressing a case- run in becuase your watchlist beeps you (you probably have 5 pages on it, right? All admin drama nests?), skim through (at leased I would assume), then make the quickest ruling possible, don't even bother double checking it, and then don't even come back to the case to see how people have responded (even if it may be something as simple as striking your fail ruling). Nice. --DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION-- 14:03, 31 August 2009 (BST)

---