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

Revenant

For unprotecting my talk page without due request and posting in it. Also, i want my talk page to be protected again in its blank state --hagnat 18:37, 23 May 2012 (BST)

People must be able to contact other users through their talkpage. Protection of usertalk pages is only done for a good reason, usually temporary in case of continous vandalism or more permanent when said user is inactive. Neither case applies to you, so he was right to unprotect it.

Although it's not necessarly related, I would like to request Rev to log these actons in the future at A/PT though. -- Thadeous Oakley Talk 18:52, 23 May 2012 (BST)

I am as active as a rock, you dumb fuck. I dont even have to scroll my user contributions page to see edits made in november :P --hagnat 19:26, 23 May 2012 (BST)

yeh they are mostly on my talk page :P--User:Sexualharrison01:24, 24 May 2012

Last I checked, rocks don't post on wikis.
What Thad said. You are active (you're posting on the wiki), and active users need to be contactable via their talk page. No exceptions. Really, only persistent vandals should have talk pages locked.
Logging on A/PT is nice, but not as necessary as it used to be now that the wiki software actually tracks this stuff properly. Still, might as well. ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 01:29, 24 May 2012 (BST)

rocks--User:Sexualharrison01:49, 24 May 2012

Not really, people can have their page protected as much as they want if you ask me, that's how it seems to have been done in the past. if they aren't contactable, it's their loss. D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 09:03, 24 May 2012 (BST)

I don't recall either myself or Thad asking you. ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 09:23, 24 May 2012 (BST)

burn D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 09:48, 24 May 2012 (BST)

Misconduct D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 09:03, 24 May 2012 (BST)

Irrelevant: I didn't edit a protected page; I unprotected it, then edited it (as a courtesy to Hagnat, I left it semi-protected); the page in that case belonged to an inactive user, which is not the case here; and the edit in that case was to change a user's name to "penis", which would be clear vandalism in any case. ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 09:18, 24 May 2012 (BST)

admitting misconduct for fucking about with another users stuff with op buttons without their permission, nice D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 09:48, 24 May 2012 (BST)

Just give him a slap on the wrist and hope he doesn't accidentally ban and entire country out of reflex when you slap him. :) --Shortround }.{ My Contributions 11:29, 24 May 2012 (BST)

Permission unnecessary. Active users must be contactable via talk page. Good faith, for the good of the wiki. ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 11:42, 24 May 2012 (BST)

18 edits in the year before my talk page got uprotected does *NOT* makes me active. And of those 18, seven were in harris' talk page just to piss him off. In fact, i got *my* talk page protected just to prevent HIM from pissing me off by posting on it. --hagnat 16:01, 24 May 2012 (BST)

i feel the love--User:Sexualharrison19:12, 24 May 2012

Misconduct. Certainly no need to alter the protection level of the page. Wanted to contact him for an official reason? You can, as sops can edit protected pages. Wanted to unprotect it for lols? That's a pointless misuse of buttons. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Rosslessness (talk • contribs) at an unknown time.

What about regular users? Contacting via a talk page is not a sysop privilege, and if a user is not inactive, they're expected to be able to be contacted. It's been a precedent for years that the only acceptable reason to self-request talk page protection is for inactivity. Finis and Iscariot are the only two examples I recall where their pages have stayed protected, and they've made 0 and 1 edits, respectively, since their pages were protected. The only question here is whether Hagnat is considered active or not. —Aichon— 19:33, 24 May 2012 (BST)

Tsk. Unsigned. I really am slipping. Hags contribs, if any, are far from active or regular. Plus if it's an emergency you could certainly email this user. This was nothing more than a random poking. Poking --Ross^lessness 21:38, 24 May 2012 (BST)

Um...That Email This User thing would only work if haggy had the box marked, "Enable e-mail from other users" checked off in his preferences. Looking at his userpage, the Email This User link is not there, so haggy doesn't have that box checked off. --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ ^{#nerftemplatedsigs} 21:47, 24 May 2012 (BST)

Or you could ask on A/PT for it to be unprotected when there's something constructive to put on there.--Shortround }.{ My Contributions 23:34, 24 May 2012 (BST)

That's not the way it's supposed to work (nor does whether or not it's constructive matter). You shouldn't be required to ask for permission to contact a user unless you've been ordered by arbitration to do so. —Aichon— 01:16, 25 May 2012 (BST)

^ This. Just because it's Hagnat does not mean he gets to be a special unique snowflake. (Sorry Haggers, you know I love you and all, but taunting Sexualharrison on his talk page about him not being able to post on yours? That crossed the line.) ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 01:48, 25 May 2012 (BST)

Not misconduct - it is not reasonable for active users on the wiki to keep their talk pages protected indefinitely -- boxy 06:24, 25 May 2012 (BST)

Technical Misconduct - First things first, that Hagnat's talk page was ever indefinitively protected was a stupid thing. Talk pages should only ever be protected for good reason, and even then only for limited time but under very unusual circumstances. I certainly would have unprotected it myself if it had been brought up on A/PT.
That being said, the way that protection change was handled was poorly done.

1. As that is neither a scheduled thing nor an urgent situation nor your own userspace, the proper way is to put a request on A/PT rather than to carry it out yourself.
2. If you carry it out yourself, the least thing to do is to document it on A/PT, rather than to let it slip under the carpet.

We rarely really enforce that procedure, but this time, it has been brought up on A/M, with explicite reference to the lack of a proper request. As the protection came from an A/PT request in the first place, it would also have been the sensible way to handle it via A/PT where the procedure in such a case could be discussed.
In cases like this where resistance by the affected user is likely, it is in your own best interest to cover your own neck before your act. -- Spiderzed█ 07:05, 25 May 2012 (BST)

I tend to agree. You monkeys. Someone else want to rule on this so we can slap a technical misconduct on this ratbag? --Ross^lessness 18:24, 25 May 2012 (BST)

Decisions, decisions. Looking through haggy's contribs, not counting the edits made in May, he's currently averaging 3.5 edits per month in 2012 (average 4.4 edits per month in 2012 overall so far should we count May edits), so he's not completely inactive. Maybe less active then he was in previous years, but not inactive. Revenant, yes, perhaps he should have documented the unprotection on A/PT. On this case, I'm leaning slightly closer to Not Misconduct, though not really by much. But like Thad, I too request Revenant to document these type of things in the future. --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ ^{#nerftemplatedsigs} 19:04, 25 May 2012 (BST)

What the fuck are you niggers even doing.

I think you guys need to be changing what is being ruled on here, because as it sits, there is nothing in the guidelines saying one way or another about whether a users talk page should be protected just because they're inactive. Karke made an error in judgement by protecting it from the start.

Seriously, the only thing that is misconductable here is the fact that Rev didn't initially log it. Talk pages are left un-protected so people can talk at them, there has never been any thought otherwise back before I continuously went AWOL. I don't even know where you faggots started coming up with this shit at. My own pages were unprotected as soon as I started dicking around after my perma-ban. Having a talk page protected to prevent other users from using it was the wrong idea anyway, Hags should have used arbies. God damn.--||||||||||||||||||||||||||| 23:05, 25 May 2012 (BST)

Where did we came up with the idea that talk pages could be protected if a user were inactive? I dunno. I seem to recall a certain someone indicating that that was the only time when it was acceptable once upon a time. ;) —Aichon— 00:34, 26 May 2012 (BST)

There's an even earlier instance... --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ ^{#nerftemplatedsigs} 00:40, 26 May 2012 (BST)

I was going for irony, not earliest. ¬_¬ —Aichon— 01:00, 26 May 2012 (BST)

I went for irony as well, AND earlier than Axe Hack's. --Akule ^{Maker of fine, hand-crafted UDWiki sass since 2006 -- Akule School's back in session™} 07:53, 26 May 2012 (BST)

Oh? You had a different opinion before that instance. --Akule ^{Maker of fine, hand-crafted UDWiki sass since 2006 -- Akule School's back in session™} 07:53, 26 May 2012 (BST)

Nukka, if you look there, I was not in support of protecting it because it was an arbitration issue. Him being inactive is the only other situation that isn't him being b& that would be suitable for protection, and I still didn't agree with it. In short i was calling DDR a homosexual for it. Axe's was something I probably didn't notice, otherwise I'd have yelled at karke for it then too.--||||||||||||||||||||||||||| 02:31, 26 May 2012 (BST)

I missed you. And yes, I know. I was just giving you a hard time because I could. <3 —Aichon— 04:03, 26 May 2012 (BST)

I think the first instance was with Fenis. He went inactive, and because he was constantly in the middle of vandalism (both for and against), we protected his talk page when he went inactive for a while. It was undone as soon as he started posting again -- boxy 03:23, 26 May 2012 (BST)

IIRC it was him. But that was for a good reason whereas this isn't.--||||||||||||||||||||||||||| 04:15, 26 May 2012 (BST)

Concluded Misconduct Cases

Check the Archive for concluded Misconduct cases.