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:MisterGame

Special:Log/block shows a 3-minute block on User:Goribus, with no reason given or present. Without going through any channels, this seems to be an open and shut Aichon-precedent 3 minute block for the offending op, then. 21:24, 1 July 2011 (BST)

Check A/VB for the reason. Though, should the team think this reaction was overkill, then I'll serve my bantime. I do believe I acted within reasonable bounds though. -- Thadeous Oakley Talk 21:26, 1 July 2011 (BST)

Case first, action second. No harmful edits were made so there was no reason for an emergency ban. Sort a VB case out as usual (though it's needless), but issuing a ban without due call has clear-cut repercussions - offending op receives the same ban, which in this case is the horrifying oubliette of three minutes isolation. Also you're a cunt but that's neither here nor there. 21:30, 1 July 2011 (BST)

I'm pretty it's action first in case of an emergency. Also thanks asshole, nice to see we haven't outgrown kindergarten level yet. -- Thadeous Oakley Talk 21:35, 1 July 2011 (BST)

The key being "in case of emergency". No emergency. You might not see the point in flavourful redirects to a group page, but it's not malicious - if I want to create four hundred different redirects to Red Rum going through every in-joke the group's ever had, it's perfectly valid. Grabbing some GI Joe in-jokes (documented here by the way) is not a fucking emergency. Dick. 21:39, 1 July 2011 (BST)

I'm still shoving Thad down at recess and hogging the slide so he can't use it. He better cough up his lunch money too. The pussy. -- Goribus 21:40, 1 July 2011 (BST)

More needless personal attacks! I am shocked and appalled! -- Thadeous Oakley Talk 07:00, 2 July 2011 (BST)

It's two separate types of redirect, the pointless front company links and the "genuine", "original" "Supercool blah blah." ones. I'll look at the VB-ness of them (and reread the misconduct case) before calling this one. --Rosslessness 22:03, 1 July 2011 (BST)

Just because you don't like what someone is doing does not make it Vandalism. Abusing your sysop powers to force the issue makes it Misconduct. ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 00:42, 2 July 2011 (BST)

Misconduct - executions of these bans should only be done to stop clear vandalism, what Goribus did is more or less par for the course with a large group move/split like this and definitely could have had some more discussion first. Because it's the act that's more harmful than that actual ban, perhaps a warning is apt here if ruled misconduct. -- ϑ^anceϑ^anceℜ^evolution 02:39, 2 July 2011 (BST)

burn him!--User:Sexualharrison04:14, 2 July 2011 (bst)

I'll plead no contest then. -- Thadeous Oakley Talk 07:00, 2 July 2011 (BST)

Misconduct even Thad says so. --Rosslessness 08:45, 2 July 2011 (BST)

Misconduct for the record. Banning him for making redirects was fairly excessive, a talk page note should have been your first port of call. -- Cheese 17:45, 2 July 2011 (BST)

Summary

With Thad pleading no contest I've gone and banned him for three minuutes. As usual in these ridiculous cases in addition to this punishment Thad needs to update his own misconduct data. --Rosslessness 08:45, 2 July 2011 (BST)

I think a warning wouldn't go amiss but that's just me -- ϑ^anceϑ^anceℜ^evolution 09:11, 2 July 2011 (BST)

Three minutes dude. We're not going thermonuclear. Besides, consistency, I got a ban and I'm lovable and cuddly. --Rosslessness 09:39, 2 July 2011 (BST)

You didn't do it under these circumstances did you? I got a mini ban too but mine wasn't like this either. Eh just my opinion, my vote would go to that as a punishment but if no one else really minds I won't press it. -- ϑ^anceϑ^anceℜ^evolution 09:57, 2 July 2011 (BST)

To be fair the consensus elsewhere seems that thermonuclear global war is the appropriate option. I was under the impression that thad had done or tried something like this before, am I mistake? --Karek^{maps 2.0?!} 21:31, 2 July 2011 (BST)

Don't know if he's done it before, but there is a difference between a simple mistake and an overreaction. Banning someone for the same length of time as the ban is standard procedure in cases of mistakes (see: Nubis, DDR, Spiderzed, et al.), but in case of someone getting banned as the result of something other than an accident, a few-minute ban isn't necessarily sufficient, though it may be. In the case of my misconduct case, it was considered sufficient, since I was mistaken about how the terms of the policy should be applied. In this case, it may be considered sufficient as well. I'm merely pointing out that the option to warn does not disappear merely because a 3-minute ban was issued. —Aichon— 23:02, 2 July 2011 (BST)

Pretty much. And I don't think he has done this before. I could be wrong but pretty sure. -- ϑ^anceϑ^anceℜ^evolution 02:11, 3 July 2011 (BST)

I'd vote for a warning. Thad has been told time and again to avoid bringing petty cases. Time to start adding some penalties. ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 06:50, 3 July 2011 (BST)

Erm bringing petty cases is vandalism not misconduct. He is here for the pre-emptive banning of a user, not for bringing a case. -- ϑ^anceϑ^anceℜ^evolution 06:56, 3 July 2011 (BST)

He made the case in an attempt to justify his blocking the user. He needs to learn to talk first. What he did was a step worse that just bringing a petty case to A/VB, and we've warned people for that in the past when it's been a repeated problem, which it has. If you really want I can bring an A/VB case for bringing petty A/VB cases, but…
How about a sysop poll for a warning? ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 09:04, 3 July 2011 (BST)

How about some closure? Seriously, if you want to warn me then warn me, I promise that unlike some people, I won't throw a huge tantrum. No point in dragging it on. -- Thadeous Oakley Talk 09:10, 3 July 2011 (BST)

If there's no complaints in the coming hours I'll give you a warning -- ϑ^anceϑ^anceℜ^evolution 09:17, 3 July 2011 (BST)

There's nothing wrong with giving short bans to stop vandals alongside a vandal case... if it's obvious vandalism. And yeah as lame as it is if you think Thad should be warned for petty cases, then you should make a VB case for it, it shouldn't be dealt with here. -- ϑ^anceϑ^anceℜ^evolution 09:17, 3 July 2011 (BST)

Actually there's plenty wrong with it which is why it's rarely ever allowed but in 3pwv cases. It's not whether it's obvious it's whether it's actively damaging to the wiki(page blanking, porn linking, etc on multiple pages actively at the time of banning). Anything less than that and it's misconduct, even if hagnat's A/M history flops on the issue. This was obviously not the case here.--Karek^{maps 2.0?!} 14:50, 3 July 2011 (BST)

That's pretty much what I meant. Didn't articulate so well though out of a perhaps naive expectation that everyone would understand that (the way you said it) was exactly what I meant. Lul -- ϑ^anceϑ^anceℜ^evolution 15:26, 3 July 2011 (BST)

I'm with Ross on this one - it should just be a ban, not a warning.--Yonnua Koponen ^{T G P} ^^^ 16:55, 3 July 2011 (BST)

Never said they were mutually exclusive - we meant both. He's already served the ban time anyways -- ϑ^anceϑ^anceℜ^evolution 03:15, 4 July 2011 (BST)

Yeah, sorry, I wasn't clear. I think he should have a ban, I don't think he should have a warning as well.--Yonnua Koponen ^{T G P} ^^^ 09:50, 4 July 2011 (BST)

Right! Let's wrap this up. Given that there's no concensus on waarning Thad, I'm going to put up a poll. Those looking for a precedent on warning in cases of wrongful banning should check this case in my A/M history.--The General ^{T Sys U! P! F!} 08:42, 7 July 2011 (BST)

Just warn me already. Also your precedent seems to iffy, I didn't read everything but according to the verdict down bottom it should have been a tie, yet you still received a warning. -- Thadeous Oakley Talk 10:19, 7 July 2011 (BST)

I considered myself as way too involved to rule on the Misconduct case itself (although I would have ruled Misconduct, given our virtually never broken "one eye for an eye" policy on misapplied bans). Now that it is settled that it is Misconduct, would anyone mind if I chip in on the warning poll? I would go with Yes, as this wasn't just a simple mistake as in the one-minute bot bans, but rather a serious misunderstanding of the application of stop-gap bans. -- Spiderzed█ 06:46, 8 July 2011 (BST)

I have nothing against it but it's more your choice than mine. -- ϑ^anceϑ^anceℜ^evolution 06:56, 8 July 2011 (BST)

Vote on whether Thad should be warned

Yes

1. -- ϑ^anceϑ^anceℜ^evolution 04:01, 8 July 2011 (BST)
2. Seems about right. --Karek^{maps 2.0?!} 04:09, 8 July 2011 (BST)
3. Yes - This wasn't just a simple mistake as in the one-minute bot bans, but rather a serious misunderstanding of the application of stop-gap bans. It should be made very sure that something like this doesn't happen again, and a 3-minute-ban is a much too mild punishment to drive the point home. -- Spiderzed█ 16:51, 8 July 2011 (BST)

   It may be prudent to point out the precedent in Aichon's case where he had a "serious misunderstanding" of the rules regarding the 3 edit rule. Given that he received no such warning, and the ban issued in that case was a permaban, perhaps you should rethink your ruling, or not base it on your personal opinions of Thad.--Yonnua Koponen ^{T G P} ^^^ 16:56, 8 July 2011 (BST)

   You may also notice that Thad's misconducted action was favourable for me (as it hampered my main arbies opponent). I still consider it as massively wrong and something that shouldn't go unpunished, regardless of who performs it on whom. -- Spiderzed█ 17:05, 8 July 2011 (BST)

   Ignoring precedent is fun.--Yonnua Koponen ^{T G P} ^^^ 17:18, 8 July 2011 (BST)

   Aichon misapplied a genuine rule. He was mistaken. Thad banned someone with no justification. He was malicious. Therein lies the difference. Stop lying about precedent that simply isn't relevant. 19:44, 8 July 2011 (BST)

   Read Aichon's comment above, where he too applies the precedent to this case. Frankly, I feel Aichon is in the best position to discuss his mental state regarding his misconduct case, not you. The only question is whether or not Thad's actions were so severe they warrant a ruling. In terms of what he did, it is exactly comparable to what Aichon did.--Yonnua Koponen ^{T G P} ^^^ 20:02, 8 July 2011 (BST)

   Again, they're not. One was the wrongful application of a rule which is valid in the right circumstances, one was a completely incorrect judgement call. Aichon wasn't warned, nor would anyone else who did the same thing as he did, as it's simply a correctable mistake. If you have someone who is acting on judgement calls outside of any rules, that's an entirely different matter. Stop comparing the two cases. 20:53, 8 July 2011 (BST)

   Thank you for your input.--Yonnua Koponen ^{T G P} ^^^ 21:18, 8 July 2011 (BST)

4. -- Cheese 17:35, 8 July 2011 (BST)
5. I already expressed my vote on this, but voting again for consistency. ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 22:20, 8 July 2011 (BST)

   You might get disappointed then! -- Thadeous Oakley Talk 22:48, 8 July 2011 (BST)

No

1. No --Yonnua Koponen ^{T G P} ^^^ 11:42, 7 July 2011 (BST)
2. Hey Thad. Re-evaluate what's considered an emergency before giving three-minute bans. ~ _{18:40, 7 July 2011 (UTC)}

   Sure thing bro sef!-- Thadeous Oakley Talk 20:14, 7 July 2011 (BST)

3. No. One of the reasons I'm not running for crat again. Commenting on Thads A/RE --Rosslessness 16:57, 8 July 2011 (BST)

Recently Concluded Misconduct Cases

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