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

Sysops responsible for User:Grim s remaining blocked

Disclaimer: The title of this case is a placeholder, pending a finding of fact, as are some of the specifics of the case. This is intended to be a preliminary motion for indictment and should in no way be considered finalised as of yet.

Contrary to the direct statement of several sysops, and apparently evading the sight of the entire UDWiki administration in the last approximately 18 months User:Grim s remains blocked from editing, by himself no less.

Accordingly, I accuse:

1. The entire UDWiki administration of Misconduct by way of Dereliction
2. The sysops and/or bureaucrats who stated that unblocking had occurred, when no such in fact had it occurred, of High Misconduct by way of Perjury and Dereliction

No, this is not a joke. I await your response. ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 15:23, 5 July 2010 (BST)

Afraid the joke's on you. Grim received a ban of 6 months, which has long since passed, yes. However Grim permabanned himself, and self-requests are always respected. Grim's was suppose to endure a 6 month ban which he did, after those six months his own permaban went into place, and he will continue to be permanently banned until he contacts a sysops to undue his own ban. BTW, nice revenge attempt after that vandalism. --Thadeous Oakley 15:31, 5 July 2010 (BST)

Afraid so. Similarly, sysops don't typically (ie. never) get misconducted for not doing a task unless they are personally asked to and refuse to do it (or show ample evidence that they are holding it off for any sort of reason). Unfortunately, this is a bit of a dead end, because not only can we rule on this (hell, we are the only ones that could), but even if we can't rule on it, we are the ones who mete out the punishment. So, I suppose it's a circlejerk-athon now which actually may have some grounds. I'd rule not misconduct but I guess Rev would bring another case against vested-interest-ruling too.

Regardless, what's even more sad is that Revenant knows Grim on a personal level and knows Grim doesn't want to come back. If he did, he could kindly request what Thad suggested above and I, as others, would most probably fulfil said request to have him unbanned since his official 6 month irreversible ban was up around may 2009, and since, as mentioned before, if Grim were to send a request to UDWiki it would most likely be through Revenant. However, grim self-permabanned and since he has control over that ban I'd rather it be reversed by his own free will rather than by sysops being misconducted for honouring his initial request/action as we do with pretty much everyone. --

 

 

 

 

15:37, 5 July 2010 (BST)

Also, dejavu, as are Funt's sentiments. --

 

 

 

 

15:40, 5 July 2010 (BST)

This has been pending for a long time, actually, I've just not had the time until recently. Also, the vandalism warning is being appealed; thank you, however, for the insight into your thought process, Mr Multiply-Convicted-Vandal.
And learn to indent, moron. ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 15:48, 5 July 2010 (BST)

Laern to teak a jk k? I'm sure you have grounds for this. Also J3D and Iscariot were genius, and unfortunately my vandal record hasn't catched up to them yet D: --Thadeous Oakley 15:52, 5 July 2010 (BST)

And who exactly would you like to rule on a misconduct case against the whole sysop team? --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 15:39, 5 July 2010 (BST)

Yonnua, Aichon, Mis, basically every sysops that was not a sysops when Grim was banned. They can't be held responsible. Not that you guys did do something wrong. This case is unnecessary.--Thadeous Oakley 15:44, 5 July 2010 (BST)

Exactly why this case is being handled differently to the general run of the mill Miscontribulation. (Also… as Thad?! I retract the "moron".) ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 15:48, 5 July 2010 (BST)

"1 The entire UDWiki administration of Misconduct by way of Dereliction " Who exactly do you want to rule on that? --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 15:53, 5 July 2010 (BST)

Supplementary evidence

<Grimch> Tell them that a complete lack of ability to contact them (Due to the ban) means I cannot get my ban undone

(Gah, edit conflicts!) ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 15:44, 5 July 2010 (BST)

Seriously? I'm pretty sure some sysops can be contacted through mail. That, and he contact through other people (like you). Other ways, are through another site, IRC, you name it. Honestly that's shit evidence. --Thadeous Oakley 15:49, 5 July 2010 (BST)

I'll happily unban Grim if he requests it. (You can email me through the wiki software, if not through anything else.) On the subject of Misconduct, it was a self ban, which he chose to administer. Nobody else applied it, he did. There's literally nobody to misconduct for this. Also, Omission, the kind of thing you're essentially alluding to, does not effect you unless you have a "special relationship" to the victim (this is not true in France or the Netherlands).[/End of Law Lesson]--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 15:53, 5 July 2010 (BST)

I need to gather evidence, but as I recall the result of the Misconduct trial was an unbanning and temporary ban. A sysop signed off stating this was complete; it was not; hence, Perjury, Dereliction, and Misconduct. I'll find the relevant cases as soon as I get the chance.
Also, I'll pass that on when next I see him. ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 15:56, 5 July 2010 (BST)

You're correct. Conndraka summarised the case as a demotion (Already handled by Kevan) and a reduction of his ban. The ban reduction was never fulfilled. However, his ban has largely been considered to be of self-nature. Get him to email me if he wants to come back, and I'll deal with it for him.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 16:07, 5 July 2010 (BST)

Done. Conndraka, hmm? Why am I not surprised?

<Grimch> the only two reasons for not updating the ban are either sloth, or malice

^ This. ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 16:22, 5 July 2010 (BST)

I've got Grim's email, and I'll unban him now.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 16:24, 5 July 2010 (BST)

There we go. Welcome back Grim. --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 16:25, 5 July 2010 (BST)

Done.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 16:28, 5 July 2010 (BST)

Not misconduct - the ban was for 6 months, but that only meant that he could request that his self imposed ban be lifted anytime after the 6 months were up, which is exactly what happened -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 23:03 5 July 2010 (BST)

Oh man, Con's ruling is just stupid. Grim's self imposed ban was never part of the penalty for misconduct (to be changed), and could have been overturned at any time with a simple email -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 23:12 5 July 2010 (BST)

Well yeah, but the exact nature of the ruling doesn't matter, because it was essentially a mandatory 6 with freedom to return after that, which is what we always went with.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 23:13, 5 July 2010 (BST)

Can we just close this case? Any wrong seems to have been dealt with now, and the only person who we can see that even vaguely could be held resposible is Conndraka, who's been gone for a long time. Rev+Grim, will you drop the charges so that we can get rid of this? Surely you see that there's no point in this existign any more?--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 23:05, 5 July 2010 (BST)

It should have been moved to talk in the first place. --

 

 

 

 

00:52, 6 July 2010 (BST)

Actually: since I've understood what's gone on, it can and should be closed, since it was just to get Grim unbanned and he's been unbanned through the channel we suggested, I think everything's looking peachy. --

 

 

 

 

01:18, 6 July 2010 (BST)

From the looks of it, the directly culpable sysop in question was Conndraka, and seeing as he was IIRC first to fail an evaluation, it would be kind of pointless (although ironically appropriate, but a pointless waste of time) to try him for it in absentia. I'll check back later, and I think Grim might have something to say, so might want to keep it open until then. (I'll prod him.) ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 01:35, 6 July 2010 (BST)

Posting on behalf of lazy bastard

<Revenant> I will need some minimal cooperation, hwoever

<Revenant> but sorry for dragging you here before double checking

<Revenant> feel free to /quit unless you wanna chat

<artificial_pseudonym> Ok... you want minimal cooperation? They are lazy fuckers who maliciously left the door shut behind me rather than updating the ban in a deliberate attempt to permenantly lock me out

<artificial_pseudonym> since I could not publicly make my request, and they could always deny recieving a message

<Revenant> oho

<Revenant> Really?

<Revenant> 'cause I remember SA messaging you

<artificial_pseudonym> you really think I left any friends there?

<Revenant> ... he later deleted all the admin pages and left, FYI

<Revenant> you would be surprised

<Revenant> allow me to demonstrate

<artificial_pseudonym> SA sent me something and I told him to go stick his head up his arse and turn it sideways

<artificial_pseudonym> and then he probably went and did it. He told me he would do something like that anyway

<artificial_pseudonym> he asked me for the shit I had written up> i told him that i flushed it, since theres no fucking point having documents for a place you are not allowed to fucking enter

<artificial_pseudonym> the only reason i slapped a perma on myself and left was to save time. If they had left it at that, big whoop. But I find out months later that they decided to hold a mock trial in my absence and reduce the ban to six months

<Revenant> xD

<Revenant> yeah

<Revenant> that was lulzy

<artificial_pseudonym> which just goes to show that they were pathetic cowards incapable of levelling a perma, even for the shit I pulled

<artificial_pseudonym> and they left themselves open for whatever the hell it is you are doing now

<Misanthropy> i really wish i was around when all this shit happened. i missed all the good drama and only ended up with the shit stuff.

<artificial_pseudonym> and now they are all whining and crying "We respect their decisions" but everyone knows that what they really meant was "We respect their decisions... so long as it is in our best interests to do so"

<artificial_pseudonym> Try and tell me they wouldn;t have updated the ban if I had slapped a month on myself rather than perma

<artificial_pseudonym> this whole thing is an attempt to excuse malicious cowardice from the sysop team

<Misanthropy> 6 hours, 2 minutes remaining of the election with 3 votes difference.

<artificial_pseudonym> When they stepped in and made a judgement, they made themselves responsible for enforcing it

Does that about cover it? ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 13:36, 7 July 2010 (BST)

For now. The Grimch ^{U! E!} 13:43, 7 July 2010 (BST)

Cover what? Judging by your last quote above, you consider this some sort of "evidence". As your demonstration of his quote above, an opinion of the victim doesn't count as "evidence". We read the emails he sent to SA, he never insinuated that the reason he flushed it was because anyone had forced him off the wiki with the ban, he said it was because he never wanted back. You don't understand. Grim is legend, grim is meme on this wiki. If he had have asked to have been unbanned, or if people had known he wanted to come back, he would have in the drop of a hat. All this proves, once again, is that grim wanted to come back and never informed us of it. This is literally on par with Iscariot's attitude when Nubis banned him for a week when it should have been a day. --

 

 

 

 

14:06, 7 July 2010 (BST)

So let me get this right. A person who had never requested to come back, had showed no interest in returning and permabanned themselves asked to be unbanned and was unbanned within minutes. My God. The Horror.--Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 15:49, 7 July 2010 (BST)

No, you moron. I sent emails to multiple sysops more than once pointing out how they had fucked up their own kangaroo court ruling and somehow they "never got the emails". Christ on a fucking pogo stick, are you really that thick? The Grimch ^{U! E!} 16:06, 7 July 2010 (BST)

NOW we're getting somewhere. Care to explain who, so we can get down to who is actually at fault here? And by "email certain sysops" I assume that means you actually requested to be unbanned, not falsify facts by "requesting to be unforced from the community" when in fact you claimed to never come back. --

 

 

 

 

16:51, 7 July 2010 (BST)

My messages to SA were deliberately over the top just so the stupid fucker would piss off and not try and drag me into drama. Amber can confirm, as we chatted as I wrote them, and she egged me on. It is not being presented as "evidence", it is being presented as a solid argument. What DDR is trying to do, along with other sysops, is try to not take responsibility for their own actions. Trying to accuse the victim of being responsible for the situation. Which is fucking typical of this place. The Grimch ^{U! E!} 16:03, 7 July 2010 (BST)

But your not a victim in the first place. You're saying you did send emails but the sysops are deliberately denying they got them so that they could keep you banned? OMG, IT'S A CONSPIRACY !1!1. Your pulling the "evil clique of sysops" card way too fast, man. Maybe it's time to get over something that happened 2 years ago? --Thadeous Oakley 16:38, 7 July 2010 (BST)

Why are you being such a fucking idiot Grim? You are completely boner-killing what I thought your comeback would be like, here I thought you'd take control of this wiki and rule it with an iron/informed/directional fist, instead you're just being retarded like Iscariot but with half the smarts. You're trying to say my motive is to alleviate responsibility as a position as sysop. As per your above post the only people you admit are responsible are the ops you emailed complaining to them but they never unbanned you. Do you claim the ops post-coup are negligent? I highly doubt it. Are you a clairvoyant, enough to email me claiming I can unban you when I'm a sysop 6 months from when you're banned? Hardly. What does a sysop do when he is given the buttons for the first time mid-2009, does he go straight back to the time Grim was banned and double check the ban that 6 sysops have checked before? Fuck off he doesn't. It's a wiki, any patrolled edit is as examined as the next, and if I'm accountable for this massive clusterfuck then I'll take responsibility as much as the next man, but for now I think I'm not in any position to try and cover my arse and say that a) there is no reasonable evidence (again citing "hilarious" IRC convo's to some kid on IRC counts for shit) that you asked to come back. b) you self permabanned giving the sysops and the rest of the community a reasonable assumption that you never wanted to come back, coupled with first and second hand information post-coup that led me and others to support this assumption, and c) any op was never informed of this "mistake" until now. Your claim of bias and supposed accountability is a joke. Now let me do my job, even if it doesn't follow your line of "justice". --

 

 

 

 

16:51, 7 July 2010 (BST)

Just Noted I wasn't a sop at the time of the grim coup. I appear to be massively fucking retarded. So yeah, nothing to do with me. Not Misconduct. --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 17:53, 7 July 2010 (BST)

The email account I used was a decoy account. It gets cleaned out roughly monthly and since no evidence exists, theres no point naming names. Since I am, and I quote "Sick of unnecessary drama". The Grimch ^{U! E!} 23:12, 10 July 2010 (BST)

Augh. Fine. Whatever. Guess the only thing left to do, really, is double-check the details of who handled the supposed ban change. I'll do some digging later. ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 23:16, 10 July 2010 (BST)

And surprise surprise, looks like all Conn:

Conndraka said:

His Ban will be reduced from a self imposed permaban to a 6 month ban effective today.

Since he's been booted out anyway and Grim's ban has been overturned, there doesn't seem much point in pursuing this case in absentia. Even if he did set the precedent, it was a shitty ruling and a good reminder that just because someone's done something before is no reason to blindly follow them. Nolle prosequi. ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 01:01, 11 July 2010 (BST)

So, archive it as a withdrawn case for now and file it with Conndraka's file, I guess? —Aichon— 03:56, 11 July 2010 (BST)

"So basically, I was just bluffing nada nada nada - User: Grim" --Thadeous Oakley 00:24, 11 July 2010 (BST)

lol impersonation? ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 01:01, 11 July 2010 (BST)

Nah, it's a translation of what he meant to say. --Thadeous Oakley 14:52, 11 July 2010 (BST)

my god you are such a massive faggot Cyberbob  Talk  16:44, 12 July 2010 (BST)

Names?

Hi, Grim, I'm Aichon. It's entirely likely you've never heard of me before, since I joined UD well after you had left, had only heard of you in passing and in whispers, and never had reason to look into your case since it was closed something like 1.5 years before I ever arrived on the scene. You have no reason to distrust me (other than that I'm a sysop, of course), and I do believe I provide a way to e-mail me from my user page (I also say specifically how I can be contacted via IRC, which I'm on nearly 24/7, even if I'm not always around). I've shown a willingness to investigate controversial issues in the past when people have raised them, so, given that, as well as that I have no reason to dislike you, nor do I have a history of issues with you, I feel like I would have been an ideal choice for receiving an e-mail. Despite that, I never did.

You say you sent e-mails. Name some names, please. This shotgun approach to handling the situation isn't appropriate or necessary, given that about half of us weren't sysops at the time, and some of us weren't even playing UD yet at the time. And nowhere is it stated that it's a sysop's responsibility to go through the backhistory of every case to ensure a fair ruling occurred. We do stumble upon things occasionally that we question, but it's the responsibility of the aggrieved party to make their case, and by all indications, you never did. If you did, say so now, and give details (names, dates, subjects, etc.). Otherwise, I'll be agreeing with the others' ruling of not misconduct. —Aichon— 19:48, 7 July 2010 (BST)

Bravo. --Thadeous Oakley 19:56, 7 July 2010 (BST)

This is also the reason I've refrained from ruling, I'd like to actually get to the bottom of this and see if anyone actually has ignored a direct request from Grim. If you have any emails or other proof, we'll happily see them. --

 

 

 

 

16:00, 8 July 2010 (BST)

Non-sysop seconded (thirded?). If a sysop did refuse the unbanning, it is clear misconduct. However, evidence must be presented first.-- Adward  22:45, 10 July 2010 (BST)

To set the tone of this case, I'll quote gnome:

A Helpful Little Gnome said:

Banning Grim s is hindering the wiki and any sysop who did that would be misconducted.

--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 21:03, 9 July 2010 (BST)

Can't get hold of Grim at the moment, so I'll just say that on reflection, I think the first charge can be dropped due to quite simply lack of substantiation. It is, as you say, not reasonable to expect every sysop to double-check old bans. Of course, whether it should be changed to simply every sysop (or just bureaucrat) that voted on but did not check Conndraka's implementation of said punishment, simply Conndraka himself (although he is no longer a sysop or even an active contributor, IIRC, the idea of trying him based on the precedent he himself set seems ironically appropriate), or just dropping it altogether in favour of the more specific second one. Opinions? ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 05:27, 10 July 2010 (BST)

I've always been for retroactive punishments for sysops (Hagnat and Nubis faced the same thing) but the sysops as a whole rarely seem to act on it, I'm afraid. --

 

 

 

 

03:23, 11 July 2010 (BST)

We could always ban Con for the excess ban time over 6 months... -- Cheese 14:48, 11 July 2010 (BST)

Sure, that's the precedent. I'd back that ruling.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 14:50, 11 July 2010 (BST)

I think it's about 14 months if I recall correctly. =p -- Cheese 14:51, 11 July 2010 (BST)

It's exactly 1 year, 8 months, 26 days, 6 hours. Making it the longest non-permanent ban ever administered.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 14:54, 11 July 2010 (BST)

To the minute. Strangely, I unbanned him 27 minutes past, which is the same as when he banned himself. Strange.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 14:56, 11 July 2010 (BST)

I was just meaning the excess part, so take 6 months off that and Con would be banned for 1 year, 2 months, 26 days and 6 hours. -- Cheese 14:57, 11 July 2010 (BST)

Right, you banning him or am I? We don't want to be banned under our own precedent 14 months down the line.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 14:59, 11 July 2010 (BST)

If we chuck some rulings down and we get a majority misconduct (and we actually do what we've said we're going to do =p) then it more than likely won't come bite us in the arse. -- Cheese 15:02, 11 July 2010 (BST)

I'll put up a little votey thing.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 15:12, 11 July 2010 (BST)

Uhm no, you can't. You can ban Con for the amount of time that Con had the ability to alter the ban and then ban the sysops that were active at the time of the case and participated in the ruling for at minimum the remaining duration of the time. You can not pass this all off on a sysop who can't do anything about it. Should Grim provide names of people requests were sent to then you can ban those people from date of email. Anything else is excessive and itself an act of misconduct. Hell, even discussing it should be misconductable due to what it implies about your use of the position. --Karek^maps?! 16:33, 11 July 2010 (BST)

And yeah, expect to see a misconduct case if you do try and put it all on him. --Karek^maps?! 16:34, 11 July 2010 (BST)

Well this is a very strange case and I'm happy with any result where everybody involved is happy. Whether that means closing the case with no result or coming up with some result, which evidently won't be perfect in an imperfect case, we need to decide on something.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 17:11, 11 July 2010 (BST)

Self bans have always taken precedence. Until shown otherwise the first request from grim to be unbanned was dealt with immediately.

Still Not Misconduct --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 17:16, 11 July 2010 (BST)

I think close the case? Every time someone who hasn't seen this turns up we get a new layer of complicity, and it's confusing my tiny brain.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 17:17, 11 July 2010 (BST)

Read Rev's opening comment. This is a placeholder. If he wants to continue any part of it, or amend who it addresses he should have the opportunity. He used it to present evidence and discuss the initial case. He needs to decide on a proper case against actual people for us to rule on. Then all this can get put on the relevant talk page. --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 17:21, 11 July 2010 (BST)

Not Misconduct since Grim can not give proper evidence as to whether sysops actually ignored requests for unbanning. As per Ross' reasnoning I have little to gain from defending the sysops actually responsible too. If Grim finds evidence that can change the nature of this case I will heartily accept it and rule accordingly but atm there is nothing to support this. As for Conn, giving it some thought. --

 

 

 

 

18:27, 11 July 2010 (BST)

My final take on all of this is that we had a few issues to consider:

1. Did Conn hand down a ruling that was contrary to what they had voted on?
2. Did Conn (or anyone else) fail to handle Grim's block in the software correctly?
3. Did sysops knowingly refuse to unblock Grim when he was allowed back, and if so, who?

Regarding #1, the wording of Conn's ruling is lazy, but had it actually been understood at that time to have a meaning other than what was voted on, I'm sure there would have been an outcry. Apparently, there was none, so I believe that everyone understood his ruling to mean the same as what they had voted on, and as such, we should assume that it was not meant to impact his self-imposed permaban (i.e. he got a six month ban, after which he could request to come back).

Regarding #2, based on the voting that occurred, it's my belief that Grim's ban should have been left in place, regardless of Conn's ruling's wording, so long as Grim did not request to come back. So, any sysops that left it in place did not engage in Misconduct (so long as they never received a request from Grim, of course).

Regarding #3, clearly, if Grim did request to come back after the six month mandatory ban (and I'm inclined to believe that he did), then any sysop who denied that request is guilty of Misconduct. But without evidence, there's nothing that can be done about it from what I can see.

So (differently than I asked earlier), how about we file it as Not Misconduct under Conn's file? —Aichon— 20:02, 11 July 2010 (BST)

I fully back Aichon's ruling in every way.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 20:41, 11 July 2010 (BST)

With Grim's unblocking and current level of aversion to drama, and Conn's absence, I am disinclined to further pursue this case. Now that it's been raised, anyone who feels it should be pursued further has the ability to do so just as much as I do. I think my part here is done. ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 15:34, 12 July 2010 (BST)

Mis-CON-Duct?

Who supports banning Conndraka for 1 year, 2 months, 26 days and 6 hours under the common precedent of sysops who incorrectly administer bans, or in this case, forget to deal with bans?--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 15:12, 11 July 2010 (BST)

Misconduct

Not Misconduct