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:Revenant

For blocking User:AinSynagoga for 24hr as per case UDWiki:Administration/Vandal_Banning#AinSynagoga against the blocking rules of UDWiki guidelines, with no reasoning other than that it is an account based purely to troll, which is something we do not interfere with (we have long been against a civilty policy).

Despite being a suspected sockpuppet there was no evidence towards proxy use, we don't warn/ban on flaming, there was no reason to ban the user for 24 hours even if there was only one ruling and the ruling was vandalism (by Revenant, mind). Banning like this during a case is the worst because it doesn't give the account time to prove to us otherwise that they are not a rule-breaking account and can prohibit their ability to mount a defence.

We do not ban users unless we are entirely sure, especially when we aren't doing it as per the regular escalations system. The only time we transcend the escalation rules is when the user is on a harmful vandalism spree and we stop the account vandalising there and then, and even then it's just for 3 hours or so, enough to undo the damage. This was not one of those cases.

This isn't on. Flimsily wording certain policies in an attempt to have your own way is getting more and more tenuous as your term goes on Rev, especially when it directly contravenes other policies, like the Guidelines. That bit's just my opinion though. -- ϑ^anceϑ^anceℜ^evolution 02:32, 28 May 2011 (BST)

I was acting directly in accordance with the Guidelines. Allow me to (re-)quote relevant sections, since it seems you don't actually read what you refer to:

“	3. The user has made at least 3 (three) edits, at least one of which is deemed vandalism, and none of which are deemed to be constructive or to the benefit of the majority of the wiki. 4. A report has been filed through UDWiki:Administration/Vandal Banning, and the user doesn't match any of the previous instances shown above. In this instance, a system operator is specifically given the ability to warn/ban the user before a report is made on UDWiki:Administration/Vandal Banning, as long as the report is placed on that page shortly thereafter by the system operator or someone else. Furthermore, system operators are specifically given the ability to both report and warn/ban a user.	”
—When a User May be Warned or Banned

“	System operators may only warn or ban users who consistently vandalize the wiki. Vandalism is by definition an edit not made in a good-faith attempt to improve this wiki, and includes any actions which are defined to be vandalism by approved polices. Many examples of this can be found on UDWiki:Vandalism. Additionally, some pages may have specific rules as to their usage, and consistent and flagrant disregard for those rules may also be considered vandalism.	”
—What is Considered Vandalism

Can't say I didn't ask for this case, although it seems that was the only part you read:

“	Since I have been the only sysop to rule so far, I am using my discretion and blocking this account for 24 hours while we sort this out. As always, feel free to Misconduct me if you feel it necessary, but please note that per the letter of the rules I can block this account indefinitely.	”
—ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 01:56, 28 May 2011 (BST)

Please stick to the facts and leave the mischaracterisation of my motives out of this, if you would? TIA. ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 02:44, 28 May 2011 (BST)

You couldn't have permabanned the account, unlike what your quote says, and if you had you'd be here for a more important case. He did not commit vandalism. You may think so, which is why you rule, but we rule based on the rules and how they've been handled in the past, and 3ER is only applicable alongside an obvious edit of vandalism. This is not that case, if it were we could just have every user on the wiki banned if they have an argument about a group or a user on a talk page. That's not how we handle it and it is definitely not how we handle it for a single user who's had like 6 edits and probably needs the chance to prove otherwise he's intentions. Also while I'm happy to keep the personal quips out of it, I find it ironic that you're concerned about people mischaracterising you and your intentions, as it's most likely what you did with this account, sept you didn't give him a chance to tell us otherwise. -- ϑ^anceϑ^anceℜ^evolution 02:56, 28 May 2011 (BST)

Also re:not reading, it's worth noting that you should have read what every user who posted on that case said: that your interpretation and misuse of the 3ER is wrong in this case. Because they were most definitely right. -- ϑ^anceϑ^anceℜ^evolution 02:57, 28 May 2011 (BST)

"'The rules only apply when i'm the one quoting them' - DanceDanceRevolution" - - Serious Post. Please do not silly. |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| 03:23, 28 May 2011 (BST)

That literally couldn't make any less sense -- ϑ^anceϑ^anceℜ^evolution 03:42, 28 May 2011 (BST)

Sure it could have; It could be literally anything you say ever, especially when goons are involved. - Serious Post. Please do not silly. |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| 06:37, 28 May 2011 (BST)

When an account is created to do nothing but troll a specific group, why should they be given a chance to prove other intentions? Nothing good was ever going to come from him, just like nothing good has ever come from you. But I guess because he was trolling those dirty goons he should be given a fucking medal instead of a ban, right? Another glorious sysop in action. --||||||||||||||||||||||||| 03:29, 28 May 2011 (BST)

TBH having ignored the whole conversation that the users posts were put on, I saw those difs and assumed he was a Goon being sarcastic. Not sure why you're making such a big deal out of this since one could turn around and say that the goon op is going on a vandetta against a non-goon troll which is certainly what it now looks like (thanks for bringing the non-important aspect of the accounts allegiance to my attention). Not that it would have mattered anyways since the only people who seem to think goon bias exists is the goons themselves. -- ϑ^anceϑ^anceℜ^evolution 03:42, 28 May 2011 (BST)

So you wouldn't have done anything to an account that was created to do nothing but shit up, say, the DHPD talk page? Somehow I doubt that. And I wouldn't say it's a bias against us so much as you being a fucking worthless sysop but there's nothing new there. --||||||||||||||||||||||||| 03:48, 28 May 2011 (BST)

That is a really, really dumb question, because the answer would of course be, if they don't commit vandalism (Note again that flaming isn't vandalism) of course I wouldn't do anything to them. TBH Don't know why you used DHPD as a valid example because I have no affiliation with them and beyond the knowledge they were mass zergers who lied to kevan about it, and had a bad sysop associated with them I don't really have any feelings towards them whatsoever. If you used my own group as an example, my response would be to wipe their quotes, or take them to arbies, as is what is done with most cases of harassment or consistent flaming, and is what should have been done here. -- ϑ^anceϑ^anceℜ^evolution 07:07, 28 May 2011 (BST)

Having watched the drama fest, it is quite entertaining, I would say Rev is in the clear. DDR, you tried to make a point about talk page arguments. I think we can both agree that there is a difference between a disagreement and creating an account solely to troll a group, for the sake of common sense that need not explained but I will slightly. The account was created and then it's only contribs were flaming on The Dead's page(yes those 6 edits). No attempt to make a normal user page, signature(Aside from one poking at the SA forums) or anything mildly constructive points to that account only being there to flame. Which means it is not needed on this wiki. Lastly you said yourself those quotes Rev provided are justification it's not just how it's been handled in the past. Had America relied solely on past precedents we'd still have segregation and probably slavery and surely to God this wiki is a tad more flexible than a country..        04:06, 28 May 2011 (BST)

Yeah no, we don't ban Goons for doing it. As such we shouldn't be banning users doing it to Goons. Common sense really. --Karek^{maps 2.0?!} 04:10, 28 May 2011 (BST)

There is probably a few goon accounts that could use removing as well. I'm not denying that fact. At least a short ban to tell them to remove the stick they all seem to have stuck up their butt       04:10, 28 May 2011 (BST)

Yes, well. If we were doing this a few years back good users like Laughing Man, Riseabove or DCC would have been perma'd, hell there were sysops trying to even without it. Yesterdays trolls tend to become tomorrows involved users at least some of the time.--Karek^{maps 2.0?!} 04:14, 28 May 2011 (BST)

I was gonna add a side note that I'd only have supported a short ban(at most 24 hours) and that a perma-ban would have been going too far but the edit conflict killed that and I didn't get around to adding it back in.       04:19, 28 May 2011 (BST)

Still don't think you understand. Trolling/Flaming is not vandalism. It is NOT vandalism. Someone who does not commit vandalism does NOT get banned. And using this as an example to real-world politics is atrociously dumb and doesn't fit to boot. -- ϑ^anceϑ^anceℜ^evolution 07:07, 28 May 2011 (BST)

Recently Concluded Misconduct Cases

There are currently no recently concluded misconduct cases. Check the Archive for older cases