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)

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

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. --– Nubis ^NWO 23:40, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, technically, 42 minutes... --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 23:58, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

The fact that he did it in the first place is wrong though.--– Nubis ^NWO 00:01, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Aye, but he did at least unban him. --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 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 so that it is easy for readers to learn more about the person behind the signature." 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. --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.--CyberRead240 05:08, 1 February 2009 (UTC)