UDWiki:Administration/Arbitration/Max Grivas and Grim s vs Akule

From The Urban Dead Wiki

Jump to: navigation, search
Padlock.png Administration Services — Protection.
This page has been protected against editing. See the archive of recent actions or the Protections log.

Max Grivas&The Grimch Vs Akule

For repeated attempts to misuse administration services, wiki lawyering to the point of ad nauseum and generally being a prick all over the wiki. --Max Grivas JG / M.F.T. 12:41, 12 September 2007 (BST)

Please See Talk Page for the continuation/resolution of this case. Conndrakamod TDHPD CFT 23:00, 20 September 2007 (BST)

This should be done here. I refuse to participate on the talk page. --The Grimch U! E! 11:29, 21 September 2007 (BST)


1. The Parties involved (and ONLY the Parties involved) are to comment here.
2. Once The Sides have presented their View of the situation I will then ask for a rebuttal/second round.
3. Once I have evaluated the situation, then I will rule in a manner according to my style of arbitration and the benifit of the Wiki as well as the trend of the will of users of the wiki.
4. Anyone with input outside of the parties will need to contact me on my talk page. That information may or may not be factored into any decision I may reach.

The Case

Please State your Opinion of the Matter at hand, Why the case was brought, why it was nescessary to bring the case, and what importance this conflict has to the Urbandead wiki and its community. yes, I understand that this may have been covered in previous discussions here and elsewhere but I want to see a fresh detailing of the issue(s) at hand. Conndrakamod TDHPD CFT 22:58, 20 September 2007 (BST)

Akule View:

I didn't ask for this arbitration, yet I seem to be the only one who is taking it seriously.

This arbitration case was so important to Max and Grim that it took five days for Max to rephrase his opening statement and still give no examples or more detailed explanations of why this case requires arbitration, and it took Grim eleven days to post that he is going to seriously work on it sometime in the future and another five to explain why it has taken so long (I'd assume it'll be after he finds some free time after individually posting to almost everyone who votes against his proposed Free Speech Policy and once he gets through his new book). So why create this glacially moving arbitration against me in the first place? Here's my impression: I haven't done anything against the rules, so they have to come up with another way of getting rid of me. It's pretty easy to think that based off of edits such as Grim's dramatic accusation that I am Amazing, that went so far as to check with Kevan and further the drama while still trying to connect me to him.

Max, on the other hand, took issue with me putting up workarounds of the DEM Roster (as covered under the criterion 6 of the Speedy Deletions page) that were confirmed for deletion and deleted by Max. Not long before Max made his ruling, he was asked by Karek if the copies of the DEM Roster would be subject to deletion. Max stated Karek that they were indeed subject to criterion 6, but that it "should be safe" (and we can see why). The simple fact that he was unsure means that his ruling of spam and the request to individually vote on each of them was not only a way of helping out his friend, Karek, but was misconduct. Looking at Max's contributions, once he made the ruling and "warning" on the speedy deletions page, he then created this arbitration. This means that his "warning" was good for 18 minutes. Then, once the arbitration was underway, he got his patsy to put up a vandal banning report against me "in order to avoid further drama". Oh, sure. A day after it blew up, he stated that he didn't wish to be anonymous (which is why he emailed it to Saromu in the first place instead of posting it or pointing it out on Saromu's talk page), and then chided him for misposting, and then explained "why he didn't report it himself." That statement alone shows how Max cannot effectively perform his function as sysop of the wiki. He lets things get personal and by his own admission states that he cannot review my edits in good faith. When you couple it with his template:Template:GrowTFU you can see that Max has had this grudge with me for some time. He wanted to get in another warning against me, despite the fact that it has been well over 250 edits since my last one, and that it should be struck.

Now, let's look at the "grievances of Grivas". "For repeated attempts to misuse administration services, wiki lawyering to the point of ad nauseum and generally being a prick all over the wiki." Sounds very vague, doesn't it? One would think that after five days he could have something to link to as an example of how I've "misused administration services" (the only real charge there). One would think that he could bring up at least something to give some sort of legitimacy to this arbitration. Unfortunately, we have what we have to work with, so let's begin with the "misuse of administration services."

I'm assuming that the majority of "For repeated attempts to misuse administration services," not only has to do with the "18-minute-spam-warning-in-order-to-help-Karek-keep-the-copy-of-the-deleted-DEM Roster ruling" that he gave to me (as stated above), but also has to do with the irritation of many users with the fact that I have put up images and the Channel 4 News Team up for deletion for violating the UDWiki:Copyrights policy. Let's examine that for a minute. It's the UDWiki:Copyrights policy. The first occurrence of one of my deletions for that policy was December 8th, 2006. So, since then, I had a request to make it all under one banner (which I started doing), a statement from a sysop to stop nominating unused images (which I adhered to), and further request to stop putting up so many images for deletion (which I also have adhered to). Despite so many people having a problem with the UDWiki:Copyrights policy, in the nine months since I started nominating images, not one person has put forth an amendment or a policy change to remove or alter this policy, despite the overwhelming support against the nomination of deleted images. How is that my problem? Oh, sure, there is an unofficial policy that some sysops follow, but that hardly makes it an actual policy.

The reason why no one has amended or changed the UDWiki:Copyrights policy is due to the fact that it was requested by Kevan to be created, he assumed to be in effect from the beginning, and he has reinforced his opinion on the matter. So most of the sysops prefer to follow the unofficial policy of "don't ask, don't tell", and completely ignore Kevan's opinion on the subject. The unofficial policy shows that most sysops don't really care what Kevan or the general wiki population has to say on the matter.

Sure, some people have asked if he still feels the same way about the UDWiki:Copyrights policy as he did before. However, if Kevan wanted to change his opinion on it, he would post on the UDWiki_talk:Copyrights and let people know of his change of opinion. The legal issues shouldn't even come into play as Kevan has stated that it is not only a policy, but at the bottom of each page it says: "You are also promising us that you wrote this yourself, or copied it from a public domain or similar free resource (see Project:Copyrights for details). DO NOT SUBMIT COPYRIGHTED WORK WITHOUT PERMISSION!" Boxy has that copyrighted images are to be speedy deleted if proof of copyright can be shown, and was used without permission.

So because I've nominated images in accordance with that policy, a decent number of people have decided to harass, flame, or mock me over this policy. I'm certain the wikilawyering charge was added due to the fact that I am studying to become a lawyer and when people started citing reasons for why the images should be added, they misquoted legal terms (such as fair use) and I corrected them. I've been directed from links such as Template:Piss Off to Wikipedia:WikiLawyering as a reference as to "why I am a wikilawyer" (as that was the first instance of that referral). Looking it over, it has the following ways to tell if someone is a wikilawyer:

  1. Using formal legal terms in an inappropriate way when discussing Wikipedia policy;
    I haven't (to my recollection) used formal legal terms in an inappropriate way when discussing the UDWiki policy. I've discussed copyright law when people have asked about it, misquoted it, and wanted to know why this policy is important to Kevan.
  2. Abiding by the letter of a policy or guideline while violating its spirit;
    The spirit of the UDWiki:Copyrights policy is to keep Kevan from having any legal issues that might cause him to face lawsuits, fines, suspension of website, or even prison time. Kevan offered to re-enable off-site hosting as a way to continue using the images and get around the legal problems that he could face, but no one took him up on that offer.
  3. Asserting that the technical interpretation of Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines should override the principles they express;
    It's hard to see how you could misinterpret the guidelines of UDWiki:Copyrights policy. It simply states: "All content on the Urban Dead wiki is owned by the individual user who created it, and may not be reproduced without their express permission. The Urban Dead Wiki prohibits the usage of copyrighted material in anyway way shape or form without the express consent of the original owner of such material. This includes the usage of logos and other forms of intellectual property. " Basically, if you don't have permission, you can't post copyrighted images on the wiki. Period.
  4. Misinterpreting policy or relying on technicalities to justify inappropriate actions.
    I can hardly see how this would apply in this instance. The policy is very clear on what copyrighted images are allowed, and there aren't many that meet that qualification.

I'm sure one of the other references in the "For repeated attempts to misuse administration services" is due to some of the Vandal Banning reports that I have posted recently. In the first report I made against Gregg Bayes, I assumed this post by boxy where he stated: "and I notice that he's done it to a number of other pages as well, but gone unreported". I that he was giving Gregg a pass for the other pages (as usually a series of vandalism attempts rates a punishment higher than just a warning) due to no one reporting the other edits. Boxy clarified his ruling, and that was the end of that report.

In the next report, I pointed out that Gregg shouldn't have been able to make a page called DEM Roster (in my opinion), much less keep it once the DEM started officially using it. It'd be like me making a page detailing the history of another group (say the DEM for example) and then expect them to stay off of it if my original edit was mocking in nature. I argued about it for a bit, sure, but I felt that I explained why it was a bad idea to allow that sort of thing.

I'm 99% sure that Grim will bring up the first report against him as it caused a lot of discussion. My biggest assertion is that Grim had no idea of how Nalikill was going to react when he broke the arbitration agreement and posted on Nalikill's user page. Saromu posted what the consequences would be if either side broke the arbitration, but I felt the arbitration should have been rendered null and void when Nalikill stated that Grim was allowed to post on his talk page again. Grim had his huff and made his assertions about me being Amazing. I asked Kevan to remove him and explained why I made the post when asked. Kevan agreed that Grim's attitude is needlessly unhealthy for the wiki, but stated that until "trusted user" is defined, a policy toward regulating their behavior is created, and official misconduct charges reported, he wouldn't force changes on people, but that he would support those steps. Hagnat moved the discussion rather than quelled it, but I chose to not respond further, as I had already gotten Kevan's opinion on the matter.

Finally, I put Rogue up for vandalism due to a threat of physical violence against anyone who supported the copyright policy, yet Grim cited it as not vandalism because he didn't threaten me directly (Of course, Rogue posting that I should die in a firing squad, is still fine and dandy for Grim). Then boxy was kind enough to reinforce Grim's ruling and attempt to stir up a response from me at the same time.

Now, as for being a prick. If being a prick was grounds to get someone banned, then I know a lot of people who would be banned. Of course, I don't see a policy on civility...

Sysops making biased rulings against certain people is not new, after all, Saromu asked Hagnat on IRC to reinforce the ruling just because Saromu wanted to ban someone. Why yes, I do have a record, thanks for asking:

 [18:55] Sonny: hagnat 
 [18:55] hagnat: me 
 [18:55] Sonny: can we get a policy made for stopping Codename V 
 [18:56] hagnat: i was tring to find the policy that made group spamming a punishable act 
 [18:56] hagnat: but i couldnt find it 
 [18:56] hagnat: i am pretty sure there was one though 
 [18:56] hagnat: but i'd rather have codename v around than banning him for good 
 [18:56] hagnat: it's fun to see him try to get his event going 
 [18:57] hagnat: and if you create something targeting him, he will only get more attention for himself 
 [18:57] Sonny: so? 
 [18:57] Sonny: I just like to have people banned
 [18:57] hagnat: hehehehe 
 [18:57] hagnat: witch burners should only be used for real threats 
 [18:58] hagnat: codename v is annoying, but harmless 
 [18:58] Sonny: so? 
 [18:58] Sonny: he floats on water 
 [18:58] Sandsun: so do very small rocks 
 [18:59] hagnat: creating drama around codename v will only draw attention to his cause 
 [19:00] hagnat: that's my point
 [19:00] hagnat: he can be easily handled by the admin staff 
 [19:01] Sonny: so have him banned during the drama 
 [19:03] *** Mode change "+v MikeaveLi" for channel #rrf-ud by globule. 
 [19:03] Sonny: and sell me your Genesis 
 [19:03] http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php/User_talk:Codename_V#Congrats 
 [19:03] hagnat: there 
 [19:03] hagnat: he is properly warned 
 [19:03] Sonny: good

Grim was quick to "unofficially warn" Matthew yet ignored previous comments or ones made after. Yet, the reason why he did it was because Matthew made a point of mentioning to have people use the talk page, but Grim only enforces it when it suits him (I.E. when someone defends certain people). A lot of people seem to be irritated with a select few members of the Arbitration staff, and yet when I follow policy, "I'm the problem." It seems that you have far bigger problems with the performance and behavior sysops than with me.

In "short", Max states that he cannot review my edits in good faith, which is why he created an arbitration with no evidence. Grim is upset with me because Kevan agreed that Grim is not a good sysop (paraphrasing). Rogue and others are upset with me because they can't be bothered to follow or change the Copyright Policy and that Kevan asked for it and continues to support it. I haven't had a warning since June of 2006 (which should be struck) and I haven't done anything that would warrant one.

To Max: If you need a vacation, take one. There are 27 other people who can do the job while you are relaxing. If you can't do the job unbiased anymore and find that you keep trying to screw over people, then step down. We obviously don't need any more of those type of people.

To Grim: You're a bad sysop. Either change your behavior or suck it up and quit whining about how I remind you of Amazing.

To all: The whole idea of the copyright policy is to prevent possible lawsuits from occurring and not to ruin your fun. Ask Kevan to restore off-site picture hosting like he previously offered, and then you can MySpace up the User Pages. If you have a problem with the Copyright Policy, then change or allow for the off-site hosting. Don't push your problems on me because you can't string together a few words and get the popular opinion together long enough to make the change. That burden is on you and not on me.

Now, I'm going to get back to my real life. --Akule School's in session. 02:33, 9 October 2007 (BST)

The Grimch View:

Cases of Wikilawyering:

  • Portraying a post made in obvious jest and with no threat towards any person (Computers are not people) as "threats of physical violence against other users" (Exact quote).
    • When i ruled against him (Reasons through link) he started a misconduct case against me, for being a participant in this arbitration, despite my signing up for this afterwards. (And posting even later, sorry bout that, but if akule gets to post two weeks after Max, i get to post two weeks after him :P )
  • Taking a case to A/VB for arbitration violation when the other person in the arb case had refrained from taking it there himself. It wasnt any of his business, and there was implied approval of the exchange by the lack of a report. If anything, he should have left a note on the talk page remonding everyone of the arb case, instead of dramambombing the wiki.
    • During this i came to believe that he was Am,azing in disguise, and asked kevan to check the server logs (Checkuser has some limitations, and cant check that great a span) to confirm or deny it. It was perfectly neutral in tone. Akule did not like this step, and tried to get kevan to demote me (Text was originally on Kevans talk page) because I am a member of the joke group, Project UnWelcome, as well as his rampant dislike of me. Full exchange on page.
  • Making a case that creating a roster of people to kill (The infamous DEM Roster) was bad faith vandalism instead of a kill list (They are quite common here, though not quite as common as in 05), then claimed that since itw as their roster, it belonged to them and pointed out numerous instances of Gregg bayes reverting the alterations of Labine who was trying to hijack the page from its original purpose.
    • This led to the DEM roster thing, where he once more wikilawyered and lost. The original page was deleted, but all the duplicated he raged against were kept.

These are just the cases i have found in the time i have been writing this (I scrapped the original as its unfair to junk Akules post with my own). There is also Akule's long history of posting vast amounts of links in the hope that you will just trust what he says about what they link to instead of checking them. Many times, the stuff on the end of the links does not support his position at all. Try it and see. At the very least, check everything he links to (And check everything i linked to as well, why should i get a free pass?).

Suffice it to say, While akule may have a point on some cases regarding copyrights, he does it in such a confrontational and dramatic manner that they invariably explode into flames. He also has a vast tendency to hound people he has a grudge against (And before any one of my numerous hounders comments on this on the talk page, i only hit back when people follow me, i dont seek them out. If i did the wiki would go up in flames within a day, and i dont carry a grudge). Neither behaviour is beneficial towards the wiki. --The Grimch U! E! WAT! 00:53, 17 October 2007 (BST)

Max Grivas View:

As presented in my opening request it is my view that Akule has repeatedly attempted to misuse administration services. His habit of wiki lawyering to the point of ad nauseum is unrelated to an earnest desire to improve the wiki and more likely the result of some class project to demonstrate how to jerk people around on the internet. His being a prick is a rather simple one to draw based on the tone of a majority of his arguments. To further clarify it is my belief that more of Akule's edits are ass-hattery than not and that no other editor has caused this much drama in as few edits and not been banned from the wiki. --Max Grivas JG / M.F.T. 21:07, 25 September 2007 (BST)

Conndraka Response:

I am now taking the situation as presented under advisement and will be considering the next step to take. I would like to issue a statement of resolution by Friday, but will not guarantee it. Conndrakamod TDHPD CFT 02:02, 17 October 2007 (BST)

Feel free to take your time. Everyone else did. :P --The Grimch U! E! WAT! 02:11, 17 October 2007 (BST)

Conndraka Ruling:

DUm Dum Dae DUM!!!!

Now that I finally have the opportunity to actually set down my real life and take up drama of a differnt sort let me ake a few observations and then pen my final ruling.

  1. This is one of the worst cases of not being able to play in the same sandbox I have seen in ages.
  2. It also comes across as a certain level of elitism by numerous parties, but will not go ino that here.
  3. There are times when being the Pit Bull doesnt do you any good when the opponet you just destroyed is a skunk.

So here goes... Max and Grim are to recuse themselves from any issue where Akule is considered a principle. Gentlemen..its going to be best if you just walk away. Additionally, Max and Grim are not to directly comment on any Group Page or Entry where Akule is the principle author. If I need to explain this... well I shouldn't have to. Finally, both are to be persona non posta on Akules personal page unless it DIRECTLY relates to maters of operational functioning of the wiki. If such post contains material that an average user would consider flamebating, it shall be considered as vandalism.

Yea... That pretty much covers that. No I'm not done, but that handles part of it.

Now for the Part I've been thinking most about.

You know, Akule has been right about a lot of the deletion requests, image copyright stuff and a whole lot of other things. But there is a differnce between right and Right. It is my opinion that you take far to much pleasure in stirring the pot when given the opportunity and take special joy in using your obvious skills of rhetoric and linguistic wrangling to MAKE YOUR POINT HEARD. and I'm tired of seeing it on the wiki so I'm going to set a precedent...

In adition to not posting on Grim or Max's pages (as they can't edit yours) I'm also stating that you can't edit the UDWiki:Administration/Deletions , UDWiki:Administration/Speedy Deletions, or UDWiki:Administration/Undeletions pages for a period of three months. You might be right, but let somebody else handle it for a while... Everyone will be happier for it.

Is this censorship?..maybe. Is this Droconian? Hell yes. Did you ask me to moderate? Yep. Deal with it. Goodnight and don't forget to tip you waitress. Conndrakamod TDHPD CFT 01:47, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

I dont see what our personal or group pages have to do with this case. They certainly were not included in the scope of the arbitration request. This was a case complaining about his conduct on administrative pages, not everything else, and those pages should be excluded. I have no problem with him contributing to anything ive written, just his conduct on admin pages, especially as this ruling throws a wrench into policy discussions and suggestions as well. Three months is also extremely excessive for him to be blocked from the three of the admin pages (And presents its own little problems, like putting his shit up for speedy and he cant say no to it). Far better would have a been a request that he engage in no pot stirring. All in all, a poorly thought out and grossly exessive ruling for both sides that goes well beyond your authority as an arbitrator. --The Grimch U! E! WAT! 08:02, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

I did what I thought was best to hopefully put an end to the issues, Based upon all of Akules various links it apears that much of the issue is personality conflicts between the users. Prevent contact and you prevent conflict. You all aproved me for moderation and if I upset everyone equally in (hopefully) permantly resolving the issue thenm I did my job. Conndrakamod TDHPD CFT 15:14, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

As i pointed out in my response, akule has a habit of overlinking to things, and that they should not be trusted at face value without examining the context. This is going way beyond the scope of the arbitration case. This is about him being a troll lawyer, or not. Not about personality conflicts. If this was a case about personality conflicts, you would be more than welcome to use such heavy handed ruling to solve that problem, but thats not the problem you were asked to arbitrate. Besides, if you had looked at the things that have happened in the last two months since the case started, you would have seen that whatever miniscule personality problems there have been have almost completely died down. You are using a ludicrously heavy handed approach to "solve" a "problem" that solved itself over a month ago, if it ever existed in the first place. --The Grimch U! E! WAT! 15:21, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

So, we're waiting for my thoughts then. I never liked the arbitration to begin with, as Max didn't come over to my talk page and try and work things out, much less give me some sort of warning or guideline, as I would expect from a sysop. The whole thing made me feel railroaded, as there were no real charges being laid against me, it was just me being on trial for being me.

Conndraka's final statement summed up a lot of my fears quite well. Basically, it's the idea that people understood that there is a continual habit of sysops overlooking some user's infractions but focusing attention on other's, and even doing the vary same infractions that they crucify others for. Soft warnings, hard warnings, loopholes, rigged arbitrations, setting people up, bias, and downright snippish behavior. I expected to be punished no matter what, so when I read this arbitration ruling, I was at least pleased to be able to see Conndraka's logic, and at least understand why he ruled the way he did.

Max's principle "beef" stems from a believed infraction of the speedy deletions page, with some of Grim's from the deletions page. Then the general concensus that people do not like following UDWiki:Copyrights, even if ignoring it one day causes the game to get shut down. They simply don't care. They want their images and don't like it when people point out that inconvenient rule or Kevan's opinion on it. That's fine. It's your choice. Just don't expect me to agree with it.

I am a little annoyed with grim's statements over this case. If the problem is gone, then why would it have to be re-ruled upon? Shouldn't it just be dropped, if it was? Oh, I know the "principle problem" is my "wikilawyering", but you and Cyberbob have done the same or worse. Even then, I gave you the chance to back out of your side of the arbitration, citing that very same thing, but you chose to continue.

I will be accepting the ruling, as I did not get banned. I don't need a re-ruling, because Conndraka is not some magic 8-ball that I can just shake if I don't like the answer. I chose him because I respect his opinion and I believe his ruling shows that he put a lot of thought into this matter. You both brought this case against me without warning me or trying to work it out at all, so I think you can suck it up and accept the ruling without further complaint. After all, you asked for this, not me.

I will assume that by accepting this complaint, the other sysops will keep an eye on the deletions pages in case there are some deletion requests of my pages by people who will want to take advantage of this situation and try to cause the very drama that this ruling is trying to prevent. In exchange, I will be working with the Image Categorization Project and my soon to be developed Copyright Project where I will be working with Hagnat and citing the Copyrighted Images as a first step for gaining permission rather than putting images up for deletion the moment my three months are up. It's at least a step in the right direction, so I'll take what I can get.

Thank you for your time, Conndraka. --Akule School's in session. 20:00, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Personal tools