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

Sysops responsible for User:Grim s remaining blocked

Disclaimer: The title of this case is a placeholder, pending a finding of fact, as are some of the specifics of the case. This is intended to be a preliminary motion for indictment and should in no way be considered finalised as of yet.

Contrary to the direct statement of several sysops, and apparently evading the sight of the entire UDWiki administration in the last approximately 18 months User:Grim s remains blocked from editing, by himself no less.

Accordingly, I accuse:

1. The entire UDWiki administration of Misconduct by way of Dereliction
2. The sysops and/or bureaucrats who stated that unblocking had occurred, when no such in fact had it occurred, of High Misconduct by way of Perjury and Dereliction

No, this is not a joke. I await your response. ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 15:23, 5 July 2010 (BST)

Afraid the joke's on you. Grim received a ban of 6 months, which has long since passed, yes. However Grim permabanned himself, and self-requests are always respected. Grim's was suppose to endure a 6 month ban which he did, after those six months his own permaban went into place, and he will continue to be permanently banned until he contacts a sysops to undue his own ban. BTW, nice revenge attempt after that vandalism. --Thadeous Oakley 15:31, 5 July 2010 (BST)

Afraid so. Similarly, sysops don't typically (ie. never) get misconducted for not doing a task unless they are personally asked to and refuse to do it (or show ample evidence that they are holding it off for any sort of reason). Unfortunately, this is a bit of a dead end, because not only can we rule on this (hell, we are the only ones that could), but even if we can't rule on it, we are the ones who mete out the punishment. So, I suppose it's a circlejerk-athon now which actually may have some grounds. I'd rule not misconduct but I guess Rev would bring another case against vested-interest-ruling too.

Regardless, what's even more sad is that Revenant knows Grim on a personal level and knows Grim doesn't want to come back. If he did, he could kindly request what Thad suggested above and I, as others, would most probably fulfil said request to have him unbanned since his official 6 month irreversible ban was up around may 2009, and since, as mentioned before, if Grim were to send a request to UDWiki it would most likely be through Revenant. However, grim self-permabanned and since he has control over that ban I'd rather it be reversed by his own free will rather than by sysops being misconducted for honouring his initial request/action as we do with pretty much everyone. --

 

 

 

 

15:37, 5 July 2010 (BST)

Also, dejavu, as are Funt's sentiments. --

 

 

 

 

15:40, 5 July 2010 (BST)

This has been pending for a long time, actually, I've just not had the time until recently. Also, the vandalism warning is being appealed; thank you, however, for the insight into your thought process, Mr Multiply-Convicted-Vandal.
And learn to indent, moron. ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 15:48, 5 July 2010 (BST)

Laern to teak a jk k? I'm sure you have grounds for this. Also J3D and Iscariot were genius, and unfortunately my vandal hasn't catched up to them yet D: --Thadeous Oakley 15:52, 5 July 2010 (BST)

And who exactly would you like to rule on a misconduct case against the whole sysop team? --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 15:39, 5 July 2010 (BST)

Yonnua, Aichon, Mis, basically every sysops that was not a sysops when Grim was banned. They can't be held responsible. Not that you guys did do something wrong. This case is unnecessary.--Thadeous Oakley 15:44, 5 July 2010 (BST)

Exactly why this case is being handled differently to the general run of the mill Miscontribulation. (Also… as Thad?! I retract the "moron".) ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 15:48, 5 July 2010 (BST)

Supplementary evidence

<Grimch> Tell them that a complete lack of ability to contact them (Due to the ban) means I cannot get my ban undone

(Gah, edit conflicts!) ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 15:44, 5 July 2010 (BST)

Seriously? I'm pretty sure some sysops can be contacted through mail. That, and he contact through other people (like you). Other ways, are through another site, IRC, you name it. Honestly that's shit evidence. --Thadeous Oakley 15:49, 5 July 2010 (BST)

I'll happily unban Grim if he requests it. (You can email me through the wiki software, if not through anything else.) On the subject of Misconduct, it was a self ban, which he chose to administer. Nobody else applied it, he did. There's literally nobody to misconduct for this. Also, Omission, the kind of thing you're essentially alluding to, does not effect you unless you have a "special relationship" to the victim (this is not true in France or the Netherlands).[/End of Law Lesson]--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 15:53, 5 July 2010 (BST)

User:Suicidalangel

Archived as Misconduct. —Aichon— 01:04, 17 June 2010 (BST)

User:Aichon

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