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 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)

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)

Misconduct Cases Currently Under Consideration

User:Grim s

For removing the sysop and bureaucrat status of every other sysop to prevent a ruling against him in another case -- boxy ^{talk • i} 10:21 9 October 2008 (BST)

Kevan has already restored everyone's sysop privileges, except for Grim's bureaucrat status, so this can't happen again. This also seems to be the decision that the majority came to in the case below. Grim has since banned himself. I suggest the scale of this abuse deserves removal of sysop status altogether -- boxy ^{talk • i} 10:34 9 October 2008 (BST)

We should delete his entire user page, if you ask me. Scum...--MisterGame 15:37, 9 October 2008 (BST)

I don't think Grim should be a Sysop anymore. If he wishes to continue his manner and actions from BEFORE his 'crat promotion, maybe the community would consider it. But I think, after the scale of what he has done here, he should be demoted back to normal User status, and then put up for promotion to Sysop at his own free will. Perhaps then, he can come up with convincing enough arguments as to why he should be promoted, and trusted. Among the countless edits that led us users to understand that the whole 'crat reign was about an e-ego he possessed, this last one really takes the cake. Also, I hope that, if he does put himself up for Sysop promotion, the attending 'crats treat him with the same respect he treated other applicants.--CyberRead240 15:43, 9 October 2008 (BST)

Kevan has already stripped Grim of his sysop powers and Grim permabanned himself before that, so I don't think we need to go any further with this. Case closed. -- Cheese 17:14, 9 October 2008 (BST)

Jesus H Me! Are you always wrong? Or just fucking trolling? Kevan removed Grim's powers but not his sysop status. He has not been demoted and therefore this case is still open. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 17:22, 9 October 2008 (BST)

And now you're ninja editing to cover your mistakes, how mature of you. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 17:24, 9 October 2008 (BST)

Fuck off. I checked the logs first, saw Kevan had demoted Grim and thought it was all sorted. I then checked Kevan's page and got caught up. If anyone is trolling on this page, it is you. Get a fucking grip. Misconduct - Takes the whole "badge of authority" things, shits on it, lights it on fire and then blows it up. -- Cheese 17:26, 9 October 2008 (BST)

OK, Grim just tried a motherfucker coup d'etat. He tried to take over the wiki. We CANNOT let him continue in even as a simple sysop. This was a GROSS misuse of his poweres. I say we not only entirely demote him, but ban him for a while as well until we can get the wiki back on its feet!--SirArgo ^Talk 18:23, 9 October 2008 (BST)

Are you mental? The wiki is back on its feet, every change has already been restored. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 18:35, 9 October 2008 (BST)

Good God Almighty! We still need to get a new crat to replace Grim, and we have to finish this new Misconduct case. Once we do that, I think the wiki will be back on it's feet!--SirArgo ^Talk 18:39, 9 October 2008 (BST)

What's this? We have to perform normal and standard wiki procedures? OH NOEZ(!). Crat's aren't sorcerers holding back the demons sent by the Great Old Ones and if we only have one his magic powers will falter under the onslaught and we'll all be mind controlled and forced to join the DEM, one will suffice for the time of a two week election. Also, you do realise Grim is in the aforementioned Crat election, don't you? -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 19:03, 9 October 2008 (BST)

Why yes indeed I do. I merely suggest that he be banned until we get this sorted out. As far as I'm concerned, putting him back in power would be a huge mistake ATM. Why don't you fuck off with your condescending attitude and let me have a damned opinion!--SirArgo ^Talk 19:14, 9 October 2008 (BST)

Grim banned himself permanently a few hours ago, and then Kevan removed Grim's bureaucrat & sysop status a little while after that. So, this now appears to be misconduct, and a closed case. --ZsL 19:18, 9 October 2008 (BST)

If ever in history some one could say this is DEFINITELY pornogrophy Misconduct this is it. Conndraka^{mod TAZM CFT} 22:13, 9 October 2008 (BST)

Misconduct --– Nubis ^NWO 01:40, 10 October 2008 (BST)

Clarification Request

There seems to be some confusion (for me, anyway) over Grim's current status. I'll bullet the points of ambiguity that need clarified:

• Kevan has said that he's temporarily removed Grim's sysop status until the resolution of this case. Therefore, this case must decide on Grim's eventual sysop status.
• As Grim is not currently a sysop, should his name be removed from the current Bureaucrat election?
• People are saying that Grim permanently banned himself. Is this true? Where is it recorded? Was it a legal action? Will the ban be reversed if it was not? Should that also be decided by this case?

Aside from those points, I'd like to request, as a long-term user of this wiki, that Grim's sysop status be permanently removed by this Misconduct case. His recent actions (most clearly the attempted demotion of all other authority, and hastily written grandiose declarations of sweeping reforms) demonstrate clearly that he is not of suitable mental health to be allowed access to my (or anyone's) personal information. --Funt Solo ^QT 19:58, 9 October 2008 (BST)

Grims self banning was discovered through recent changes, where he demoted himself to sysop and banned himself permamently, kevan removed the sysop powers as well. --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 20:00, 9 October 2008 (BST)

see [[1]] --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 20:02, 9 October 2008 (BST)

Thanks - non-relevant parts of initial post now struck. --Funt Solo ^QT 20:04, 9 October 2008 (BST)

And blocked himself [[2]] --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 20:06, 9 October 2008 (BST)

Does that now mean that since Grim is permabanned and no longer even a sysop we can close this case and move on to other issues?--SirArgo ^Talk 20:07, 9 October 2008 (BST)

I believe the issue is about whether kevans demotion of sysop powers is temporary or needs confirming. --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 20:10, 9 October 2008 (BST)

Yes, Kevan stated that it is temporary, and dependent on the outcome of this case. This needs to be clarified before we can move on. Also, if his ban is reversed, he may attempt re-election as sysop (if he's actually staying demoted, that is), and I want that door closed to him, for the reasons given above. --Funt Solo ^QT 20:20, 9 October 2008 (BST)

+1 --HAHAHA DISREGARD THAT, I SUCK COCKS 20:21, 9 October 2008 (BST)

+2 (Not the cock part) --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 20:22, 9 October 2008 (BST)

I acted on the second point myself. He is not currently a sysop, therefore it made no sense for him to be a part of a bureaucrat election, and so I removed him. --Funt Solo ^QT 21:10, 9 October 2008 (BST)

Grim's gone. He's been on the verge of quitting for a while, and I very much doubt he'll be back. ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 02:33, 10 October 2008 (BST)

Funt, he said "I'll reverse it should the new misconduct case decide in his favour" which basically means the opposite of what you say of Grim's demotion. Kevan is willing to reverse everything if the sysops vote in GRIMS favour, not the other way around, but until then, Kevan's demotion is permanent and should be accepted by the Sysops. In my opinion, anyway. D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 07:52, 11 October 2008 (BST)

He also said he was "temporarily revoking his sysop powers", so there's ambiguity there. --Funt Solo ^QT 18:28, 11 October 2008 (BST)

Main event breakdown

... (for those who are feeling lazy =P)

Here is a rundown of the events that have occurred compiled from the various logs:

• 05:46, 9 October 2008 - Conndraka posts the ruling resulting from the misconduct case
• 06:00, 9 October 2008 - Conndraka passes the matter onto Kevan
• 10:17, 9 October 2008 Grim s (Talk | contribs | block) changed group membership for User:Thari from checkuser, sysop to (none)
• 10:17, 9 October 2008 Grim s (Talk | contribs | block) changed group membership for User:Zombie slay3r from checkuser, sysop to (none)
• 10:17, 9 October 2008 Grim s (Talk | contribs | block) changed group membership for User:A Helpful Little Gnome from bureaucrat, checkuser, sysop to (none)
• 10:17, 9 October 2008 Grim s (Talk | contribs | block) changed group membership for User:Daranz from checkuser, sysop to (none)
• 10:17, 9 October 2008 Grim s (Talk | contribs | block) changed group membership for User:Boxy from checkuser, sysop to (none)
• 10:17, 9 October 2008 Grim s (Talk | contribs | block) changed group membership for User:Conndraka from checkuser, sysop to (none)
• 10:17, 9 October 2008 Grim s (Talk | contribs | block) changed group membership for User:Karek from checkuser, sysop to (none)
• 10:17, 9 October 2008 Grim s (Talk | contribs | block) changed group membership for User:Krazy Monkey from checkuser, sysop to (none)
• 10:17, 9 October 2008 Grim s (Talk | contribs | block) changed group membership for User:Nubis from checkuser, sysop to (none)
• 10:17, 9 October 2008 Grim s (Talk | contribs | block) changed group membership for User:Swiers from checkuser, sysop to (none)
• 10:17, 9 October 2008 Grim s (Talk | contribs | block) changed group membership for User:The General from checkuser, sysop to (none)
• 10:18, 9 October 2008 - Grim formally declares his Coup detat
• 10:20, 9 October 2008 - Grim adds a small FYI to his previous post
• 10:20, 9 October 2008 - Boxy creates this misconduct case
• 10:22, 9 October 2008 Kevan (Talk | contribs | block) changed group membership for User:Grim s from bureaucrat, checkuser, sysop to checkuser, sysop
• 10:23, 9 October 2008 Kevan (Talk | contribs | block) changed group membership for User:Boxy from (none) to sysop
• 10:23, 9 October 2008 Kevan (Talk | contribs | block) changed group membership for User:Boxy from sysop to sysop, checkuser
• 10:25, 9 October 2008 Kevan (Talk | contribs | block) changed group membership for User:Thari from (none) to sysop, checkuser
• 10:25, 9 October 2008 Kevan (Talk | contribs | block) changed group membership for User:Zombie slay3r from (none) to sysop, checkuser
• 10:25, 9 October 2008 Kevan (Talk | contribs | block) changed group membership for User:A Helpful Little Gnome from (none) to sysop, bureaucrat, checkuser
• 10:25, 9 October 2008 Kevan (Talk | contribs | block) changed group membership for User:Daranz from (none) to sysop, checkuser
• 10:26, 9 October 2008 Kevan (Talk | contribs | block) changed group membership for User:Conndraka from (none) to sysop, checkuser
• 10:26, 9 October 2008 Kevan (Talk | contribs | block) changed group membership for User:Karek from (none) to sysop, checkuser
• 10:26, 9 October 2008 Kevan (Talk | contribs | block) changed group membership for User:Krazy Monkey from (none) to sysop, checkuser
• 10:26, 9 October 2008 - Grim posts his reasoning on Kevan's talk page
• 10:27, 9 October 2008 Kevan (Talk | contribs | block) changed group membership for User:Nubis from (none) to sysop, checkuser
• 10:27, 9 October 2008 Grim s (Talk | contribs | block) blocked "Grim s (contribs)" with an expiry time of infinite (Nevermind. I guess shit will always be shit regardless of what anyone tries to do. Farewell.)
• 10:27, 9 October 2008 Kevan (Talk | contribs | block) changed group membership for User:Swiers from (none) to sysop, checkuser
• 10:27, 9 October 2008 Kevan (Talk | contribs | block) changed group membership for User:The General from (none) to sysop, checkuser
• 14:34, 9 October 2008 Kevan (Talk | contribs | block) changed group membership for User:Grim s from checkuser, sysop to (none)

Ruling

By Unanimous decision, Misconduct. Conndraka^{mod TAZM CFT} 06:59, 10 October 2008 (BST)

Now What?

whereas this is of a level that exceeds proper description, I move that each incident of Gross misconduct (as seen in the log above) be counted as a separate count of Vandalism for the sake of Vandalism escalation. Obviously this would result in a x11 escalation which goes well over perma on the ban scale. If any of the other sysops have another idea I'd like to hear it. Conndraka^{mod TAZM CFT} 06:59, 10 October 2008 (BST)

Dump the body, Barricade, and Heal? --– Nubis ^NWO 11:32, 10 October 2008 (BST)

Our banning system doesnt have auto-perma, Conn. Even if grim managed to escalate 11 counts, he would still have to pass a voting between the sysops to decide to perma him or not. --People's Commissar Hagnat ^talk 12:49, 10 October 2008 (BST)

As described in the relevant policy document, 11 counts of vandalism with no time between them would be a ban of 6 months and 10 days, with 5 permaban votes. Additionally, as noted in the section I created above, I (and other contributors) would like it spelled out as to whether or not Grim's sysop status is revoked by this case, and whether any such revocation is permanent. Thanks. --Funt Solo ^QT 16:35, 10 October 2008 (BST)

In light of the actions following the case, I think a de-opping and permaban is in order. I don't believe that 6 months will be long enough nor do I think that if he is ever allowed to come back that returning as "Grim" would be a good idea. I think it is in his best interest to have that name "die". If he ever comes back and is reformed it wouldn't be fair to have the stigma of this tantrum hanging over him. --– Nubis ^NWO 16:47, 10 October 2008 (BST)

As long as I've been here (or followed A/VB, at least), one vandalism spree has resulted in only one escalation. --Midianian^{|T|T:S|C:RCS|} 18:19, 10 October 2008 (BST)

gross vandalism has also resulted in permabans--THE Godfather of Яesensitized, Anime Sucks ^{Yalk | W! U! WMM| CC CPFOAS LOE ZHU | Яezzens} 18:31, 10 October 2008 (BST)

Only through "more than 3 vandal edits and no constructive ones" as far as I know. --Midianian^{|T|T:S|C:RCS|} 22:42, 10 October 2008 (BST)

There is a huge difference between blanking several pages and making yourself the Godlike ruler of the wiki. --– Nubis ^NWO 19:57, 10 October 2008 (BST)

Which is pretty much my point, the difference is that big. Going "a-ha! he committed eleven acts of vandalism and thus gets eleven escalations" seems both unnecessary and counter-productive. It's undermining the system because current practice is to consider multiple counts of vandalism as a single escalation. Also, consider a potential (quite unlikely) future situation where a 'crat decides to stage a coup by only demoting the other 'crats. That's not enough to give them a perma-ban if the acts are counted individually, but it's still a coup and (IMO) worthy of a perma. As far as I know, Misconduct punishments aren't codified so why not just say "a coup gets you a perma-ban, all in favor?". --Midianian^{|T|T:S|C:RCS|} 22:42, 10 October 2008 (BST)

It is ridiculous to suggest that Grim should, or could, come back under a new name after a permabann. That would just make this a second wikigate, bringing a new generation of witch hunters out to hunt down Grim socks (or anyone who even looks like grim). Give him a few months to get over it, and let him back in -- boxy ^{talk • i} 22:34 10 October 2008 (BST)

Assuming he doesn't off himself before then, that is. --HAHAHA DISREGARD THAT, I SUCK COCKS 22:39, 10 October 2008 (BST)

Why let him back in? He broke the rules! If anyone else had done this, they would NEVER be allowed back!--SirArgo ^Talk 22:43, 10 October 2008 (BST)

We always let people back after a single tanty page wiping spree. It takes a huge amount of vandalism to get yourself to a permaban. Grim's little coup was an epic fail. Fixed in minutes. Move on -- boxy ^{talk • i} 22:49 10 October 2008 (BST)

That's not true. See my post below for links to perma bans based on just a few vandal acts. --– Nubis ^NWO 11:55, 11 October 2008 (BST)

OK, but just let me make this last point. HE DEMOTED EVERYONE AND PUT HIMSELF IN CHARGE. If Kevan hadn't intervened he would have begun seriously changing this wiki and forcing in his rules in everywhere! I would be all for letting him back in as a regular user, but I think he should be permanently unable to become a sysop or bureaucrat.--SirArgo ^Talk 22:54, 10 October 2008 (BST)

It was the last act of defiance of a damaged soul. just demote him, slap him with an appropriate vandalism ban and move on... can anyone seriously imagine he would get voted into any similar position if (big IF) he did come back? Apart from anything else the Crat of the time would be strung up for allowing his promotion any time soon! By the way... vandalism denotes "bad faith" and always has done... reading that post of his, can anyone really claim he was acting in bad faith? breaking lots of rules and being a megalomaniac yes! Bad faith in any real way??? I actually think he was acting in what he saw as the best interests of the community.... He was wrong but that would never have occurred to the Grim most of us knew!--Honestmistake 00:45, 11 October 2008 (BST)

But Kevan did intervene, and always will in such circumstances. Sure, it's major misconduct, that's why the almost unprecedented steps of de-modding and a ban are being discussed, but the rest of the sysops need to get a grip. There was never any risk that grim was going to take absolute control of the wiki, unless Kevan wanted it that way. A few months ban from the wiki is appropriate, and perhaps permanent de-modding. But if the wiki community wants grim back, as their overlord, sometime in the future (knowing of his past, as recorded here), then they should probably be free to have him. That's what democracy is, the common people knowing what they want, and getting it good and hard ;) -- boxy ^{talk • i} 00:47 11 October 2008 (BST)

H L Mencken? Kewl. Nietzschean democracy FTW! Garum 01:59, 11 October 2008 (BST)

Boxy, I really think you aren't seeing the big picture here. A misconduct case that Grim felt shouldn't have even been brought up against him went bad for him. He threw a fit, demoted everyone, then banned himself. All of us have bullshit cases against us that with common sense shouldn't have been an issue. I'm pretty sure all of us have at least one Misconduct ruling against us. None of us did anything like that when we weren't happy with the vote. That's like telling a kid no cookies and he burns down the house. Yes, it's great the Kevan stepped in and restored everything, but maybe we shouldn't have pyschos with that kind of authority in the first place. And if he was doing it in "good faith" then why demote the people that weren't even involved like Swiers or Karek?

HonestMistake, if he was actually acting in good faith and had all of these grand plans for reforming the wiki then why did it take a misconduct verdict to make him post about them in his psychotic rant? Why would one misconduct verdict stop him from carrying on with his grand design? All of the other sysops seem to be able to carry out their normal duties while defending themselves on here. His actions and reactions speak quite clearly about where his real priorities lie - his own ego. --– Nubis ^NWO 03:46, 11 October 2008 (BST)

Bad Faith is usually taken to mean a deliberate attempt to damage the wiki. Grims self stated aim was to clean it up and improve it, Good Faith vandalism has always been held to be a mistake rather than an offence. Just because all of us think he was out of order does not mean he was acting in Bad Faith. The timing was obviously solely due to his imminent lynching (I mean demotion) If he had gone on to actually ban any of the sysop team that would have been a different matter, he didn't... he just left with a big bang. It's a pointless debate anyway really in that i can't see him coming back. However the principle remains that the demotion was unfairly issued and a permaban given his overall contributions is out off line. --Honestmistake 14:05, 11 October 2008 (BST)

Why are you telling me all that? I know it all already and agree. It still doesn't make a permaban the appropriate penalty. De-modding and a few months to cool down is more than enough. Just to put this into perspective, when OddStarter unilaterally decided to promote Amazing, much to the dismay of pretty much everyone else on the wiki, he got absolutely no penalty whatsoever, past being told not to do it again, and Conndraka only got a bit over a day ban, and no loss of mod privileges for the unilateral and unwarranted permbanning a user without reporting it on A/VB. I realise this is more serious... but not enough to warrant the ultimate penalty of a permanent ban -- boxy ^{talk • i} 05:13 11 October 2008 (BST)

Then what is worthy of a perma ban? Just vandalism? Vandalism without contributing? Having an offensive name? I'm really curious. We seem to give them out to regular users easily. Why is this one difficult? --– Nubis ^NWO 11:52, 11 October 2008 (BST)

All of those vandals had contributions, in fact the first one worked extremely hard for his ban. Grim on the other hand, has an extremely long history of worthwhile contributions to the wiki, so good were his early contributions, that the community deemed him worthy of being promoted to the sysop position that he has just lost. I would suggest that anyone who has gained enough community support to be promoted to a sysop position should not be eligible for permbanning without going through the required vandal escalations to earn it. They have already well and truly proved their contribution to the wiki, and a single misconduct case or even VB case isn't enough to warrant dumping them permenantly. As it says in the wiki, vandalism article, "the only aim with warnings and bans is to attempt to stop the vandal from continuing to vandalise the wiki", bringing this philosophy onto misconduct means that demotion and a short ban will achieve the desired outcome (no more coups), a permaban seems little more than pay-back for all the grief that has gone before -- boxy ^{talk • i} 12:14 11 October 2008 (BST)

Boxy's right. Grim hasn't committed any form of vandalism or misconduct before, so looking at it objectively it would be incredibly unfair to permanently ban him. The idea of a a short ban and complete removal of sysop powers seems like the best option to me. -- Cheese 12:39, 11 October 2008 (BST)

This is all I was asking for last night before the mini-flame war broke out and my ideas got buried in the shit slinging. Though I do think we should make it impossible for him to ever be a crat again. If somehow he manages to get re-elected as a sysop, ok, but I don't think he should be allowed to advance any father than that. Lastly, do we even know if he wants to come back? He might be sore about this whole thing and he just wants to be gone.--SirArgo ^Talk 19:14, 11 October 2008 (BST)

One option here is to ask Grim to agree to a set of simple principles before he's allowed to edit again - nothing extreme, just basic things that are important for good "citizenship" of the wiki, like 'follow the spirit of the rules' or 'try and co-operate with others.' (Those are just examples, I'm sure you can think of better ones.) The idea would be to only include things that you lot all do already because you know they're the right thing to do. Where I'm coming from on this is there seems to be a lot of distaste for Grim's behaviour even outside this misconduct case, and now could be a good opportunity to try and nudge him in the right direction. --Toejam 18:07, 11 October 2008 (BST)

Toe, I'll agree to that for one big reason...Grim would never agree to it. The whole idea of "an artificially imposed code of conduct" is anathema to him. Which is one of the reasons him suggesting it in his FINAL tirade was so peculiar. And folks I'll remind you that Amazing had a large number of positive edits in his career here, but when he went totally apeshit he was put down. Permanently What is surprising now is that someone can so violate the trust of the wiki and so few people be willing to do something about it. Unpopular my ass. Conndraka^{mod TAZM CFT} 18:28, 11 October 2008 (BST)

You're using Amazing as an example now? Well look at the vandal data, Amazing was only "put down" after a lot (and I mean a shitload) of warnings and bans, compared to Grim who was once banned for an arbitration dispute. And who exactly is not "willing to do something about it"? No one is suggesting that he gets off these charges. Everyone seems to be agreeing that demotion and at least a few months ban would be appropriate, except for you witch burners, who want the nuclear option right from the start. How does it feel, being the new-age GANKBUS? -- boxy ^{talk • i} 23:57 11 October 2008 (BST)

Toejam, no disrespect to you, but Grim would never agree to a set of simple principles, because he would never admit that he's done anything wrong, or that there should be civility on this wiki in any form. In fact, he's always vociferously argued that he's more capable of being right than anyone else (hiding behind the smoke and mirrors of a claimed superiority in debating skills), and that his being a "dick" is a perfectly valid form of behaviour, despite his (once held) position of responsibility. You do realise, I hope, that in being finally brought to task for his obnoxious style of management, he reacted by trying to seize absolute power. If you examine that closely, you'll see that he demoted ALL the other sysops (whether they'd gone against him or not, or been involved at all in recent events), which was one case of clear Misconduct. He then posted his manifesto, which (by claiming to be the only authority) was a separate case of Misconduct. He further attempted to instruct Kevan on how to run his own wiki (by again claiming absolute authority): a third case of Misconduct. He absolutely deserves a ban, in my opinion, partly for his own mental well-being. It needn't be permanent (but then, I don't understand why Amazing is permanently banned, and we can all note that Karek fully supports that), but it should be lengthy. This is not A/VB, and so the sysops have the power to agree to any punishment (and need not follow the A/VB scale at all). As they are not in agreement over a permanent ban, I call for a 6-month ban, demotion from sysop, and a permanent ban on any account ever identified as belonging to the human behind the Grim s facade ever running for sysop (for data security reasons). --Funt Solo ^QT 18:57, 11 October 2008 (BST)

Perma-Ban Vote

For the sake of closure and in light of the severe vandalism following the case, I believe it is in the wiki's best interest for a sysop vote on Perma banning Grim s and all of his IPs.

1. For--– Nubis ^NWO 16:47, 10 October 2008 (BST)
2. For -- Cheese 19:25, 10 October 2008 (BST) Against - Changed my mind. -- Cheese 12:28, 11 October 2008 (BST)
3. For Conndraka^{mod TAZM CFT} 22:27, 10 October 2008 (BST)
4. Against -- boxy ^{talk • i} 22:30 10 October 2008 (BST)
5. Against - I'm gonna go out on a limb and trust Boxy in this until I have more time to look into it. Probably tomorrow. --Karek^maps?! 08:54, 11 October 2008 (BST) I've read into some of the stuff and just skimming it. The fact that most of you can continue on as if you don't deserve as much punishment as him and do deserve any semblance of authority over anyone is mindboggling. It's a shame that Kevan can read through that and not demote at least half of you.--Karek^maps?! 09:20, 11 October 2008 (BST)

   You don't bother to add anything to the case, but you feel you have the right to come back and admonish us for making a decision? Must be lonely up there on your pedestal. When does your hiatus start again? --– Nubis ^NWO 11:59, 11 October 2008 (BST)

An alternative to the Perma-Ban

6 Month Ban, Demotion from Sysop (to determine official status), 1 year prohibition from promotion.

1. For Conndraka^{mod TAZM CFT} 20:02, 11 October 2008 (BST)

   Oh, so now you give an alternative option, after it looks like your little witch burning party mightn't be quite as successful as hoped. You're a useless sysop Conndraka, resign or at least put yourself up for reevaluation -- boxy ^{talk • i} 23:47 11 October 2008 (BST)

   You know, now might be a good time for a complete re-evaluation of the whole team. I don't say this because I want to get rid of anyone but because it would be a very good opportunity to see who is trusted by the community. Regardless of whether that happens I do think we need to institute a set term for sysophood to ensure regular revue.--Honestmistake 00:28, 12 October 2008 (BST)

Cheese

Moved to archive

User:A Helpful Little Gnome

Moved to archives.

User:Grim_s

Moved to a new archive, seeing as it was too big to go onto grim's existing misconduct archive page -- boxy ^{talk • i} 22:25 10 October 2008 (BST)