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:Misanthropy

Ruling not misconduct on a case of two sysops ruling not vandalism against him. The sysop community is not supposed to be a clique but an impartial group of dedicated wiki editors. --Sonny Corleone ^{DORIS I jizzed in my pants pr0n} 22:54, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

According to Iscariot's above post, there's precedent allowing Cyberbob to vote not on his own case, so I don't really see the involved parties clause extending over this.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 22:56, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

That was his own misconduct case. This is different. Misanthropy is covering DDR and Rosslessness for covering him. This would be misconduct. --Sonny Corleone ^{DORIS I jizzed in my pants pr0n} 23:02, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Were you not paying atttention? Mis votes not misconduct on this, DDR and Ross vote not misconduct, so does Boxy in a more wordy manner. And you get an escalation for shitting up admin pages. Especially since there's no actual case here, except a long rambling chain of causality that's only some sort of conspiracy in your head. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 23:07, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

One to talk about conspiracies, Iscariot... --Sonny Corleone ^{DORIS I jizzed in my pants pr0n} 23:17, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Go bait the newbies and declare war on a Brainstock group, nobody who's been on here more than 10 minutes thinks these cases are going to do anything but bite you in the ass. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 23:18, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

I didn't expect you to be so prompt, Sonbun, I'm pleasantly surprised. 23:29, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

Goddamn you are such a little bitch when you don't get your own way Sonny. Cyberbob  Talk  01:37, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Barring the fact that Sonny is in raeg mode, Mis DID break the ToU by calling him a dirty mexican. Misconduct(warning/softie), quit that shit yo'. >:| --Big Cat 02:07, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Debatable, but irrelevant. This is concerning me ruling not misconduct above, not whether or not I broke the ToU. There's a case on A/VB for that one. Silly moo. 02:11, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

I am a silly moo who woke up much too groggy this morning and must re-evaluate what happened to half of my beard and figure out how coffee got every where. :| --Big Cat 05:37, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

NEW THING! I've decided while this isn't misconduct-able out right, as shit can get confusing with the precedents people use and abuse around here, you were still an involved party. I've stricken your decisions above, and this case is now over and can be archived. Problem solved, little fuss, ja?--Big Cat 05:45, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Well if his vote for the other 2 do not count then I'm perfectly fine with this decision. --Sonny Corleone ^{DORIS I jizzed in my pants pr0n} 06:32, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

They will not. We need to stamp down on this "voting when involved" shit. And you need to consolidate mirror-cases in the future, as they get archived properly in the end anyway. :| --Big Cat 07:52, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

So you're saying that despite me thinking this is misconduct, I can't actually vote this way? You'll go ahead and strike my vote? --

 

 

 

 

08:09, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Involved party? Y/N?--Big Cat 23:34, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

It was my case in which his vote was made (and already struck so regardless of my vote it won't change that). Thoughts? --

 

 

 

 

08:34, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Not Misconduct - Frivolous. -- Cheese 21:56, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Changed my mind after reading through the rest of this. Misconduct -- Cheese 16:24, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Misconduct - Don't rule on cases against yourself -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 21:25 20 March 2010 (BST)

This case has been up too long without any input, something I delayed as the user who's A/M case he ruled on initially... Fuck it. Misconduct, in cases like this I always remember these two precedents which spawned from the events in this case and the case above it, respectively. They aren't identical to this but it follows a very similar principle. I know Misanthropy was just playing the drama, but trolling begets trolling=bad. If any other sysop actually thinks my vote is illegal they may strike it. --

 

 

 

 

09:06, 21 March 2010 (UTC) As I'm archiving the other two- what say we? Misconduct, warning? Don't think anything worse applies here. --

 

 

 

 

05:55, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Nah lets get out the banhammer. Give him a suspended warning, he does it again he gets a demoted for a couple of days. --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 11:17, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

If no complaint comes up I'll probably finish this with warning sometime tomorrow. --

 

 

 

 

11:21, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Why hasn't Ross ruled on this? If he votes misconduct then there is a clear majority in the verdict, if he votes not misconduct there is a deadlock and there's no need for talk of warnings or bans. This is of course dependent on Aichon abstaining as he now gets a say in this matter. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 14:39, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't get a say just yet, since the promotion is still contingent on boxy's go-ahead, but if you wanted to know what I'd rule, it'd be Misconduct. I talked with Mis a bit about it on IRC yesterday or the day before, but, as I said with him, though I don't think he meant anything by it, he still stood to directly benefit from voting Not Misconduct on the others, which is a clear conflict of interest. Simple as that. I also don't see a reason for anything more than a warning at most. —Aichon— 14:57, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Alright then. Warned. --

 

 

 

 

10:29, 24 March 2010 (UTC)