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:Suicidalangel

Demote the Cunt.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 18:33, 7 June 2010 (BST)

For obvious reasons. Here. Someone should demote him before he deletes more.--Thadeous Oakley 18:33, 7 June 2010 (BST)

Ross got him. Plus, I highly doubt he'll be coming back. I assume we're banning him as well? 6 Months, as per the Grim precedent?--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 18:37, 7 June 2010 (BST)

Did Grim ever came back? You may as well hand out a perma. --Thadeous Oakley 18:39, 7 June 2010 (BST)

Just noticed that he requested one in his demotion request, so he should probably get one.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 18:40, 7 June 2010 (BST)

Misconduct. I know, crazy. We can discuss sanctions once a few more sops have woken, up, caught up, ruled. Anyone want to save me some time and link grims misconduct case here? --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 18:50, 7 June 2010 (BST)

Here. Top of the page.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 18:54, 7 June 2010 (BST)

Misconduct, btw --Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 18:54, 7 June 2010 (BST)

Misconduct and make sure it goes on A/VD, don't let him slip off recordless. 20:10, 7 June 2010 (BST)

Misconduct - Wut? -- Cheese 22:37, 7 June 2010 (BST)

We've pretty much established it was misconduct, so we should talk penalties. Who's really in favour of a permaban?--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 23:39, 7 June 2010 (BST)

Misconduct - SA went off and deleted a heap of admin pages, and blocked Yonnua Koponen without a valid reason. He has already been demoted, and requested a permban. I believe he should be given that permban, however if he requests to be unblocked after 6 months, he should be allowed back. While this was serious misconduct, it did no permanent damage, and circumstances change constantly -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 23:44 7 June 2010 (BST)

I second this ruling. Also, he totally had a valid reason; I was getting in his way while he was deleting stuff. ;P --Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 23:49, 7 June 2010 (BST)

Misconduct and permaban - Now that I've woken up, most definitely as boxy. He can come back in six months if he wants, but he asked for a permaban, so we should give it to him, if not as punishment for Misconduct, them simply as reason #6 under which bans are allowed. —Aichon— 01:06, 8 June 2010 (BST)

I'll third that assessment. Indefinite ban with the option of returning in 6 months. --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 09:33, 8 June 2010 (BST)

Well, we have four votes for it, and he requested it before he left, so I'll administer the ban. (If someone else hasn't already)--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 09:37, 8 June 2010 (BST)

vandal Data Baby --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 09:41, 8 June 2010 (BST)

Ergh, this is why I should never ban people. I think I've sorted it out now.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 09:45, 8 June 2010 (BST)

What we doing about his sock? Same? --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 09:58, 8 June 2010 (BST)

sure. I figured it was permabanned years back.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 10:00, 8 June 2010 (BST)

See. This is what happen If I'm not paying attention. --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 19:39, 9 June 2010 (BST)

Ending?

Unanimously ruled Misconduct by 6 to 0. Punishment is a Permaban with the possibility of a return after 6 months. Any qualms? -- Cheese 13:36, 10 June 2010 (BST)

The punishment is a 6 month ban. The perma is simply because he requested it -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 13:47 10 June 2010 (BST)

That was so fucking AWESOME !!! SA made one my dreams come true... even if only for a while :D --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{[talk] [wcdz]} 05:34, 11 June 2010 (BST)

Lol. It didn't last long enough, if I may, he should have copy and pasted DS onto a number of largely used templates to crash the server so no sysop could get on to block him or revert the changes. Me, Rooster and Janus have felt the sting of such an attack :*( --

 

 

 

 

06:55, 11 June 2010 (BST)

Ha fucking Ha.--SirArgo ^Talk 00:39, 17 June 2010 (BST)

User:Aichon

Archived as Misconduct. —Aichon— 01:19, 8 June 2010 (BST)