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

DanceDanceRevolution

DanceDanceRevolution denied my promotion bid. He had no reason other than the fact that he's racist, he doesn't like me, and/or thinks my bid was a joke. I am not amused. --/~Rakuen~\^Talk I Still Love Grim 19:18, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Oh lulz. Technically, you did have an enormous majority, it's just that the "seriousness" is being disputed of the whole thing. That, and bureaucrats don't need to base their decision on mere democracy, though I'm not sure how far that goes.--Thadeous Oakley 19:28, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Strangely enough, I ran the numbers, and he did not have a simple majority, let alone the vast majority of the people commenting on his bid supporting him. —Aichon—

LIAR! btw I got 29 for 23 against with 3 that were unclear and could go abstain or against or maybe even vouch mabbe.--/~Rakuen~\^Talk I Still Love Grim 19:49, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Close. You had 27 vouches (you forgot to discount your vouch and SA's second vouch), 23 against, and 5 abstain/other, for a total of 55 people. Like I said, not even a simple majority, let alone a vast majority. —Aichon— 20:43, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Racist.--/~Rakuen~\^Talk I Still Love Grim 21:34, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Is this because you promised to kill yourself if you weren't promoted? Not Misconduct. You even failed the most basic Significant activity within the community Criteria. --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 19:31, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

LIAR!--/~Rakuen~\^Talk I Still Love Grim 19:49, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

CHEESE MANGLER!---Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 19:52, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

CROTCH BUTTER!--/~Rakuen~\^Talk I Still Love Grim 19:56, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

And even with this amusing aside thats still only what, 50 edits in the last 6 months? --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 20:03, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Maaaabbe--/~Rakuen~\^Talk I Still Love Grim 21:34, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Not misconduct - your bid is a joke -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 19:43 16 December 2009 (BST)

Says you. I was being 100% serious. Srsly.--/~Rakuen~\^Talk I Still Love Grim 19:49, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Not Misconduct - Close to being A/VB for you though woot Cyberbob  Talk  20:41, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

WELL FIIINE--/~Rakuen~\^Talk I Still Love Grim 21:34, 16 December 2009 (UTC)