UDWiki:Administration/Sysop Archives/Boxy/2007-12-07 Misconduct

From The Urban Dead Wiki
Jump to navigationJump to search

Administration » Sysop Archives » Boxy » 2007-12-07 Misconduct

Browse the Sysop Archives
Bureaucrat Promotions | Demotions | Misconduct (TBD) | Promotions | Re-Evaluations
2006 | 2007 | 2008 | 2009 | 2010 | 2011 | 2012 | 2013 | 2014 | 2015 | 2016 | 2017 | 2018 | 2019

2007, December 07

For ruling on Grim S's misconduct case and then banning him without either a chance at defense or input from the rest of the Sysop team.

Relevant Section said:
it is important that the rest of the sysop team be able to review the charges as necessary

Not only that but as Hagnat so graciously pointed out, there is no policy or rule saying what he did was abuse of his power but, to top that it was done 2 hours before the ban was up(not like a day or so) and Grim was given no chance to explain his actions, as has always been the way here, even though it was well after his ban from the A/VB case was over.--Karekmaps?! 16:31, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Karek, I love you (and I actually do, I really respect you), but this is just adding to the grief... the whole thing could go away fairly swiftly, and our Grimch could be restored to full powers right quick, regardless of this ruling. --Barbecue Barbecue 16:43, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
The goal isn't about adding to the grief, it's about Boxy having done something only Kevan is allowed to.--Karekmaps?! 16:57, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
Boxy should have waited for the input of other sysops before enforcing his rule. It's not like grim will go savage and vandalize the wiki as soon as he got out of his ban period. I am removing his ban so a) we can discuss this thing a little further b) grim has a chance to defend himself. --People's Commissar Hagnat [cloned] [mod] 16:46, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
Seeing as how he has now been overruled by three sysops, id consider this misconduct in the extreme, especially given his comments here and on my talk page regarding the issue. Anyhow, im technically an involved party, what with being the victim, and thus i cant rule. --The Grimch U! E! WAT! 19:51, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
Well, the rest of the sysop team still can, and did review the charges. If that section is taken to mean that a ruling can't be given until we have a day or two of drama, then I'll know for the future, wont I. Also something to consider is that I was reapplying an A/VB ban that was never served out. But, whatever, I'm not going to get into a week long drama fest over it. If you guys rule misconduct, I'll take a ban of however many hours Grim did before you unblocked him (regardless of the ultimate outcome of his case) -- boxytalk • 00:25 4 December 2007 (BST)
2 hours 12 minutes. Just looked it up. Though i think a warning should be in order for tossing aside due process. Thats just personal opinion though. --The Grimch U! E! WAT! 04:38, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, do you want to rule on this Hagnat (or someone)? I've said my piece, the case in question was left here (rather than being archived) for other sysops to review, as they did -- boxy talki 13:34 9 December 2007 (BST)

I dont think i am the most suited to rule on this case, but i have to agree with grim's ruling on a self-imposed 3h ban (i dont suppose we can set minute lenght bans) and a warning. --People's Commissar Hagnat [cloned] [mod] 15:27, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Misconduct - warned and a 3 hour ban -- boxy talki 00:51 10 December 2007 (BST)