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:Boxy

Refusing to strike my warning despite being active on the wiki and fully aware i am due a striking. I will only accept iscariot as arbitrator. xoxo 09:10, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

But seriously this case is serious. xoxo 09:10, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

It only becomes serious if I try to escalate you without taking the situation into consideration -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 09:21 15 November 2009 (BST)

Not Misconduct - Congratulations, he never explicitly stated he wasn't going to strike you, and you gave him a grand total of 4 minutes before putting the case up. Ask someone else before jumping to the podium. And the very fact you threatened him with an A/M case doesn't make the case itself any more legitimate, and will most likely follow with an A/VB case of your own if this is ruled Not Misconduct. --DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION-- 09:23, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

cool story. But hey,it looks like this case at least got me the strike i've been requesting for some time. So maybe the system does work... xoxo 09:27, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

And you'll be receiving an escalation within the day if I have anything to do with it. See what happens when you wait more than 15 minutes before jumping into a case? --DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION-- 09:31, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

You went out of your way to be obnoxious about me jumping to do your bidding, despite me being involved elsewhere on the wiki. There is no requirement for sysops to deescalate someone within minutes of such a demand. You know that. Just as long as it's done in good time, and before considering a further escalation... which it looks like you're trying to earn ASAP -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 09:36 15 November 2009 (BST)

No actually i put in a request days ago and i had made over 250 edits since my last act of vandalism. I come back on the wiki and theres been a shitstorm of drama but magically no striking (well there was one, but it was gone). I was understandably irritated and wanted to make sure that the striking was done whilst i was active on the wiki this time, so i could make sure no shenanigans got in the way of justice being served. xoxo 09:41, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

You had made 247, actually. 247 =/= striking. --DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION-- 09:46, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

"from a user's last infraction". See below case. And you can't cry precedent on the case on me because that case didn't exist when i requested striking. xoxo 10:15, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

User:DanceDanceRevolution (2)

Editing a protected page in a bad faith manner.

The ability to edit protected pages is a sysop only ability and to quote the Administration Guidelines; "Given that sysops and bureaucrats are the only users who can edit protected pages, it is expected that system operators take care to edit protected pages only in good faith, and not without good reason." How, pray tell, is unstriking an escalation (that could lead to a user being banned incorrectly) because a sysop (and I quote DDR's edit summary) feels "like an asshole" in any way good faith or have a good reason? -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 12:04, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Dude. Since when do people get escalated for what they put in their edit summaries. Jed was 3 edits away from a striking so if anyone should be on the stand it should be Boxy. You made the wrong choice when considering your daily A/M case, friend. --DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION-- 12:07, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Incorrect, the line is taken, from the cycling of warnings and bans section to be from a user's last infraction. Infraction meaning bad thing they did, the case that got J3D banned was started on the 5th, meaning that the infraction must have occurred on or before the 5th. Your date of the 9th is inconsistent with the wording of the policy. You are at fault. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 12:10, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

We have been using the dates of the warnings as the 'infraction' for 4 years. Want precede- oh. --DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION-- 12:12, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Precedent is clear, in the case of you suspecting Boxy had de-escalated a user early he should have been brought here for misconduct. Your own bad faith is clear from your edit summary, you were not unstriking it to ensure records were accurate, you were doing it be an asshole, this goes against the good faith and good reason clause I listed earlier. You admitted your own guilt in your own edit summary. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 12:14, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Haha you idiot, edit summaries make no influence in judging whether an edit is bad faith. It is the action which is judged. Boxy made a mistake an I corrected it, as people with permission to protected pages can and should do. The "asshole" call was in relation to whether I would let Boxy's edit slide or not. It seems my right mentality of being a netiquette nazi has enraged you Izzy. --DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION-- 12:20, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Your edit summary, is.... wait for it.... a summary of your edit. Editing protected pages to be an asshole clearly shows a lack of both good cause and good faith as is required by the guidelines. I do not see you correcting any other 'errors' on A/VD so I must go on your own words written in the edit summary. You may continue to argue if you wish, however I established through your own words that the edit was not good faith nor was it in error. Feel free to have this ruled not misconduct and get Boxy a case for destriking early as per my favourite precedent. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 12:24, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

No, you've just established you are still an idiot. I didn't edit it to be an asshole like you fallaciously claim, I was being an asshole by rejecting Jed's A/VD change because he was 3 edits short. Being such a nazi makes one an asshole. I just made some commentary on it. End of story. Now to sit back and look at the ops laugh, drink fosters all round and consider whether you've gone back to your harassment days. --DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION-- 12:29, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm quite happy for this to be ruled not misconduct, because it will then prove you had just cause to remove it, accordingly I'll be amused by all the "yeah, but..." sentences that will happen in Boxy's case to try and get him out of his escalation. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 12:32, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

You're deriving personal pleasure from these cases? Sounds like a recipe for an A/VB case for harassment to me. Cyberbob  Talk  16:27, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

But Bob, you just ruled that what a user did is what matters, not how they felt and what they said, double standard much? I can't wait for this to be closed to see what kind of excuse you come up with for not voting misconduct on Boxy's. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 17:17, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Yay, cases dealing with a few hours, and the interpretation of policies as if they were meant to be hard and fast rules. Teh wiki at it's best. Meh. Just get j3d to post a couple of times without getting himself a warning, and forget it.
*Invokes involved party clause, and runs away.* -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 14:39 14 November 2009 (BST)

You puss boxie. :/ nm. Though if he does it again in such a manner I say demote the cunt.-- SA 15:53, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Seriously what the fuck, 2 cases in 2 days he's obviously lost his marbles and given his account to someone else =D --DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION-- 23:32, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Not Misconduct shut the fuck up iscariot Cyberbob  Talk  15:06, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Not Misconduct - Thank you for your input. -- Cheese 15:12, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

User:Cyberbob240

• One
• Two
• Three

Demote the cunt.-- SA 23:50, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Also, OH FUCKKK ITS CYBERBOB HAMMER DAT Minor Misconduct BUTAN-- SA 23:52, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Minor misconduct - slap on the wrist misconduct. Not even worth an official warning. Just don't do it again until A/D/S allows it, please -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 01:50 13 November 2009 (BST)

Minor Misconduct Forward great Consistency! --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 09:33, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

This is ' Not Misconduct '. xoxo 08:29, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

God i miss the days when i could say that without putting a space between my apostrophes, sob. xoxo 08:42, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Nobody else does. Cyberbob  Talk  11:02, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Best. --DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION-- 11:06, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

You really are the white eddie murphy. and please a/vb me for that being a racist call, you fucking piece of whitetrash shit. xoxo 09:02, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

If there is no further discussion, this can be archived tomorrow -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 14:40 14 November 2009 (BST)

User:DanceDanceRevolution

Breaking multiple aspects of the Administration Guidelines.

At 7:10am of 12 November 2009 DDR banned User:A250989181 for advertising. This is an act with a modus operandi we have seen many times before and I do not doubt its legitimacy.

As part of routine maintenance I placed {{Template:BannedUser}} on the user and talk page of the account in question. This served a dual fuction of indicating the status of the account to any user who was not aware of the case (users have previously been escalated for welcoming or otherwise engaging with banned users) and to allow the final part of the banning process to take place, that of the protection of the user pages of this account. As stipulated in the scheduled protections section, users should have their pages protected for the length of their bans, {{Template:BannedUser}} is neutral content for those without a page (as an uncreated page cannot be protected).

DDR then came across these pages and decided that he was not going to complete the banning process (by protecting the page according to its scheduled status) and instead deleted them. The scheduling for deletions give him no such authority to delete these pages on sight, the nearest is "Pages created by Adbots and Spambots are to be deleted on sight", however these pages were not created by an adbot or spambot, the were created by a user fulfilling maintenance tasks on this wiki. For comparison, the deletion of The Do¡¯s Don¡¯ts of Ugg Boots is in no way contested or part of this case.

DDR is a sysop and is more than capable of understanding the process of scheduling deletions should he wish his opinion that certain accounts should not get pages become part of the policies of this wiki, in that process I'd bring forward the obvious reasons why it would not be the best idea.

DDR is guilty of:

• Failing to complete the banning procedure by protecting a banned user's pages as defined by the scheduling
• Deleting a page that is not covered by the scheduling system without first going through A/D or A/SD

Both instances have resulted in warnings for sysops who have committed such acts in the past. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 08:43, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Look. This is in whole a part of the unnecessary over-codifying of the scheduled deletion which gave us the right to delete adbot pages despite our right to do it anyway; we've been able to delete adbot related things in the past beyond what was at the time codified into the guidelines, and I consider the account a product of the spambot clause we once took for granted, the one that allowed us to delete unnecessary products of spambit-related garbage off the wiki. Countless times in the past we've rejected spambot's rights and sanctions as compared to normal users and I consider giving them a protected banned vandal page a wrong extension of a spambot's rights; they aren't actually users and we've never treated them as such before now. While I'll take any sort of wrap if this becomes misconduct, I stand by what I've done as it is simply the act of eradicating unnecessary elements of spambot's marks on this wiki. --DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION-- 09:00, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

The spam bot had not input to this page being made, nor did it have any spam bot created content on it. The page will not help it's business or whatever, hell linking the deleted page with Ugg Boots in the title will do more for it than the page you deleted did. The simple fact of the matter is that you deleted a utility template that is there as part of the guidelines to allow that account's pages to be protected and also to inform users to, in effect, not attempt to converse with the account. You have demonstrated you know how the scheduling procedure works, go attempt change if you don't like it, but don't make up your own rules in the meantime. The red tape is there for a reason. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 09:06, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

You know after my capers with Nubis how much I hate hasty and unnecessary deletions against the will of community, so you'll be assured I didn't do this on a whim. And if this becomes misconduct, I will most probably endeavour to have this passed as a scheduled deletion alongside the spambot clause. --DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION-- 09:19, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

At which point you'll hear the arguments against such an idea, something you should have done beforehand and not just decided to do against the established guidelines and forced a misconduct case about this. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 09:22, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

If doing this was going against the established guidelines, then every sysop who had deleted a spambot-created page before the scheduled deletion had codified it would also be guilty of misconduct. Grim used to delete them on sight as crit 2's for god's sake. When it comes to spambots, we've never had to bother with what the guidelines restrict of us, we've always been given the benefit of being able to eradicate the extraneous traces that they leave. --DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION-- 09:27, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Izzy, YNTGOM.--

| T | BALLS! | 09:15 12 November 2009(BST)

Creating pages for spambots serves no purpose whatsoever. Firstly, they have no contributions (once their pages have been deleted), so no one is going to come across them. Secondly, the only references to them are links from the vandalbanning page (that will be removed in days anyway), and other talk pages where they are discussed in the context of what they are. Both places make it clear that they are bots. Iscariot is creating pages that are totally unneeded, and will, in 90% of cases, become absolute stubs, with no way to find them unless a user searches the VB history, or the user list. He's just creating pointless work for the sysops -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 09:24 12 November 2009 (BST)

However, adbot related pages failed scheduled deletions, so this is minor misconduct -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 09:31 12 November 2009 (BST)

You're citing something that demanded the deletion of every comment and reference of a spambot, not just the page, the two are inherently different in practice despite their similarities in intent. --DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION-- 09:34, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Iscariot is creating pages so that the guidelines (the protection of banned users) can be carried out. This also protects users from being escalated for welcoming or talking to banned users, something you assisted getting someone escalated for IIRC. A case of Boxy judging the user rather than the case yet again? I think so. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 09:26, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

If there was no page, there would been no need to protect it -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 09:31 12 November 2009 (BST)

Didn't you notice I didn't make a ruling, Izzy, while I went looking in the archives ;) -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 09:32 12 November 2009 (BST)

I noticed yet another ad hominem attack direct against me by you on an admin pages whilst doing something required or allowed by the policies of this wiki. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 09:35, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

And I noticed you big noting yourself yet again, for doing totally useless stuff and then making out that the sysops are somehow letting the wiki down by not doing it themselves -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 09:52 12 November 2009 (BST)

I said nothing about sysops failing the wiki, are you automatically assuming bad faith? Again? I noted that DDR failed to go through the correct deletions procedure and charged his with misconduct for that, you seem to be ruling on something other than I brought here.... -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 09:55, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Minor Misconduct as boxy. --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 10:03, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

True DDR broke the rules while using sysop powers I don't think this should be misconduct. Instead, try working out a policy about whether or not adbots should have user pages made for them. Furthermore, users shouldn't be escalated for commenting on an adbot's page. We need less bureaucracy, more common sense, and more working together to resolve little issues like this.--_GANG Giles Sednik _CAPD 11:32, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Go on then. --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 17:54, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Minor misconduct and a stern bitching (delivered by me because he gotted me a warning D:< ) delivered demote the cunt and then a policy or scheduled deletion-thingy after the case.-- SA 15:32, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Misconduct - I reckon we should demote the cunt Cyberbob  Talk  16:09, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Red Tape is there for a reason. Perhaps a time out of demotion will help DDR figure out how to follow the rules. -- #99 ^DCC 18:20, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Deary me Bob... And you complain that I get swayed. Should I just throw you up too now? --DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION-- 21:06, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Dude, I'm pretty obviously lampooning Read. This is slap-on-the-wrist material if I ever saw it; I'm just having some fun with it. Cyberbob  Talk  01:02, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

If it makes either of you feel better I knew what was going on for every side in this conflict and I laff'd.-- SA 01:27, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

I like how my obviously not serious, deliberately over the top statement of "demote the cunt" has now become jargon in this place. My influence knows no boundaries.--CyberRead240 11:39, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

I never meant the comment :/ of course its a joke. I just assumed you would defend something that you must have figured was in the right if you did it yourself. w/e, we aren't even getting warnings by the looks of it. --DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION-- 11:42, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Comment removed cause I'm a glipe who didn't read the rules. 19:27, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Only sysops can make rulings.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 19:20, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Misconduct - But only just. Adbot pages don't need the banned user templates, its not even worth the effort creating the page. -- Cheese 20:51, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Looks like the case is more or less over, as Misconduct. I have to say I'm disappointed over this whole thing. Even Iscariot didn't have the balls to bring me and Cyberbob here as I suggested, which would have been the right thing to do since I only emulated his actions from two weeks ago (which no one cared about by the way, so god knows why I'd think it wasn't the wrong thing :/) and as such seeing Cyberbob of all people bandwagon just brings a tear to my eye. I guess you can revert the deleted pages and have them sent to A/SD and have Iscariot keep them and have it sent through A/D now, like it should be done according to guidelines? Oh, none of you will bother undeleting them? Typical. Punishment please. --DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION-- 21:42, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

I will hereby announce your punishment for crimes most horrid:

1. You will undelete and protect the pages you so heartlessly struck down in the prime of their life.
2. You will bring to each person who has posted so far in this case a (one/1) shrubbery. Persons posting after me for the first time are ineligible to receive shrubberies for this punishment.
3. You will change your signature for a period of one (1) month so that it reads "Dance Dance Revolution The Shrubber".
4. You will write and post your own administrative warning to your talk page.
5. You will ensure that this warning is suitably snarky and epic, think Grim giving an admin warning to J3D.
6. You will not use the letter 'K' on this wiki until such time as SA posts a sentence containing "Simon says".
7. You will name your first born "Finis Zeug Revolution".

Learn your lesson, show appropriate remorse and meekness and pray that you are never again subjected to such severe punishment! -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 22:08, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I fucking love it, and fully support this as an official admin ruling.-- SA 22:36, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Slap on the wrist misconduct. Not even worth an official warning. Just don't do it again until A/D/S allows it, please -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 01:50 13 November 2009 (BST)

If there is no further discussion, this can be archived tomorrow -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 14:40 14 November 2009 (BST)

DDR is still using the letter k, and he (nor I) have been given the go ahead to give him a warning that is "suitably snarky and epic".-- SA 15:46, 14 November 2009 (UTC)