UDWiki:Administration/Misconduct/Archive/Grim s

	Misconduct Tracker
	Misconduct	Not Misconduct
	0	12

Grim archive *2

05:28, 2 August 2008 (BST)

UDWiki:Administration/Misconduct/Archive/Grim s/200808

18 July 2008

UDWiki:Administration/Misconduct/Archive/Grim s/200807

30 June 2008

UDWiki:Administration/Misconduct/Archive/Grim s/200806

12 May 2008

UDWiki:Administration/Misconduct/Archive/Grim s/200805

4 January 2008

UDWiki:Administration/Misconduct/Archive/Grim s/200801

3 December 2007

UDWiki:Administration/Misconduct/Archive/Grim s/200712

14 November 2007

UDWiki:Administration/Misconduct/Archive/Grim s/200711

27 October 2007

UDWiki:Administration/Misconduct/Archive/Grim s/200710

12 October 2007

UDWiki:Administration/Misconduct/Archive/Grim s/200710#12 October 2007

11:53, 15 September 2007 (BST)

UDWiki:Administration/Misconduct/Archive/Grim s/200709

07:16, 25 August 2007

As you can see on UDWiki:Administration/Vandal_Banning#USer:M4dD_mUdD.7CM4dD_mUdD, he has warned M4dD_mUdD when he removed a trollish comment in good faith. He was told twice by me and several other times by other users than his warning was unwarranted, and still remained impervious. He was told that it was common for trollish comments to get deleted altogether from the A/VB page, as you can see here, here and here, just as some random examples I could dig out. There even used to be an announce about the deletion of trollish comments on the A/VB page that was both added and then oddly removed by Gage on a rather obscure action, but in the month and a half it was there no Sysop OR normal user complained about it.

Appart from that, end even if we ignore all what has been said up to now, Grim was mistaken in two others parts of the case:

• To be vandalism an edit must be made in bad faith. We don't warn/ban over a set of "possible bad edits" without checking their first intention. If that were so, an excessive part of the userbase would be granted a warning at the beginning of their stays on the wiki. Literally taken from UDWiki:Vandalism: "When assessing cases, the important question is one of intent, not action". He has in an explicit way stated that he isn't willing to follow this philosophy all Sysops must adhere to.
• If it was vandalism, he should have reverted the changes. He again omits this part of the work deliberately. Both the A/G and the A/VB page compel Sysops to do this themselves ASAP.

It's always up to interpretation why he made these mistakes, but they are mistakes. He and some users are already discussing where they shouldn't (A/VB) what are my motivations on starting this case, if this past drama fest or that one... but I have an history of defending newbie's edits, sometimes in a quite quixotic way, and this is just one of those situations. Even if you consider this last comment BS, you're ruling on his actions and not my motivations as the reporting user, as in my past Misconduct case. Do not make a vandal from a well intentioned person, neither vandalism from a good faith edit aimed to improve the wiki. --Matthew Fahrenheit ^YRC☺T☺+1 07:16, 25 August 2007 (BST)

Quick question. When did M4dD mUdD become a sysop to make the decision on what is a trollish edit and what isn't? And when did he become a sysop to be allowed to remove what he deemed as trollish? And what is your position on Balthazar and the Haunted Woods? --Sonny Corleone ^{RRF DORIS CRF pr0n} 07:30, 25 August 2007 (BST)

Classic misconception: Sysops don't have any more authority than normal users neither can decide more so what is a trollish comment and what isn't: this rule applies everywhere but on those places that explicitly specify the contrary. There's only one such place and it is the Suggestions page. --Matthew Fahrenheit ^YRC☺T☺+1 07:45, 25 August 2007 (BST)

Ah, ok. When did M4dD mUdD become Santa of the wiki where he decides what's naughty and nice? --Sonny Corleone ^{RRF DORIS CRF pr0n} 07:51, 25 August 2007 (BST)

Greetings Matthew Fahrenheit. Its nice to see you finally grew a pair and decided to back up your bark with some bite. A shame you needed reminding so you couldnt squirm out of a good arse kicking.

Point 1: A person who reports vandalism usually reverts the vandal edit before they report it. In this case they didnt and i did not notice. Since this is something anyone could do, or not do, as the case seems to be, i wonder how the fuck you could consider this to be part of any misconduct. There is also absolutely nothing about having to revert anything on the Vandal banning page, the vandalism policy document, or the Administration Guidelines (I just looked).

Point 2: Deletions of other peoples comments on any page has historically been defined as vandalism, regardless of the intent of the edit, unless the edit was an obvious case of page blanking. Historically, users have been warned for removing comments from discussions on many pages. Indeed, in the deep dark recesses of history, LegendX (now banned) was found guilty of this a couple of times.

Point 3: If you open the floor and say that anyone can remove comments that they feel are trolling (There is no real objective standard by which to label trolling. Some of it can appear quite benign), then you will have a shitstorm of drama that this wiki hasnt seen since the days of Amazing, Rueful, Scinfaxi, and Jjames and their rolling fued. This is one fucking gargantuan can of worms you are trying to open here just for some petty revenge, as everybody will be able to apply their own subjective definition of trolling to remove comments from talk pages and discussion pages with which they disagree. I dont know about you, but i like places where there is some form of consistancy.

Point 4: Tied into point 3, this wiki supports and promotes free speech. You can be an absolute jerk here, and so long as you stay within the rules, nothing will happen except you will become unpopular. That said, if you dont like what someone else has to say about you, you are under absolutely no obligation to respond to it. And if they follow you around with it, well, thats what arbitration is for. You dont need to arbitrarily remove it. Just ignore it, and so long as you do, the poster looks like a jerk and thats the end of that.

Point 5: Sonny claims the comment was made in jest, and thus in good faith. Given the edit style and content, it is pretty clear it was intended to be over the top and silly. While i dont approve of this, its not my job to moderate each and every users individual contributions. Its my job (And yours) to perform administrative tasks on this wiki. We are not like forum moderators.

Point 6: This entire case seems to be your retaliation against me for ruling against you in the misconduct case Jorm brought against you a few days ago. In fact, the timing and nature of your reprisal hasd been discussed well in advance of your stupid, petty threat, and the actions based on it.

Point 7: Vantar, another Sysop, agreed with my decision on the page, for some of the same reasons i made the decision to warn.

So, to summarise:

Deleting other peoples comments is a bad thing, trying to justify it as removing something so difficult to define and quantify as trolling just opens a can of worms so fucking horrifying that the mere thought of it should have you venting your bowels. (I am indeed fortunate that i went to the can for that very purpose before considering it). It opens the way to hundreds, if not thousands, of massive edit wars on numerous pages, and completely removes our ability to deal with them, putting the only means for bringing them back under control into the hands of the arbitration page, which is often slow, unweildy, and immensely inconsistent. I can only conclude that the only possible reason you would even consider trying to make a case so utterly stupid is to retaliate against me for ruling against you in the misconduct case made against you the other day. Grow the fuck up and try to do whats best for the wiki instead of whats best for your poor little bruised ego. --The Grimch ^Mod-U! 08:47, 25 August 2007 (BST)

I have more, but this will do for starters --The Grimch ^Mod-U! 08:55, 25 August 2007 (BST)

Not misconduct - Grim is interpreting the rules differently, I don't agree with him, but it's a difference of opinion The preceding signed comment was added by boxy (talk • contribs) at 10:15 25 August 2007 (BST)

Ruling tiem? Then not fucking vandalism, I mean misconduct.</lurking>--Thari ^{TжFedCom is BFI!} 16:20, 25 August 2007 (BST)

Agree. Grim just did his job. He would have nothing to gaim by warning Mad Mud, and removal of troll comments in administration pages were always a job for... well, the administration. It's like an extension from their user pages :~ --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{[cloned] [mod]} 17:20, 25 August 2007 (BST)

About that last bit Hagnat, I can't agree and if you want we can have a hopefully healthy discussion about this on my talk page, Anyways, is the second warning over mad mud going to stand? I still don't see his edit as bad faith, even when Grim s "interpretation" (basically discarting the rules because he's afraid of the consecuences of following them) may excuse him of doing wrong. --Matthew Fahrenheit ^YRC☺T☺+1 17:41, 25 August 2007 (BST)

You lost. As boxy said, my interpretation of the rules was different to yours, but still within the rules, and thus the warning stands. You are only attempting to get the warning removed so you can then argue that i did wrong, and then change the outcome of this case, on which three moderators have found me not guilty. Get over it. --The Grimch ^Mod-U! 04:49, 26 August 2007 (BST)

06:59, 23 April 2006 (BST)

Straight up vandalism, deleting a community announcement that was supported by some kind folks who thought it was important here. A slap on the wrist might be necissary just to let Grim s know he's not the judge of what's "garbage" and what's a useful community announcement. Last I checked this was a Wiki and unless there are rules written otherwise, any user may add community announcements if they are worth adding. Also guilty is another party, though the Moderator should be held to higher standards. If someone wants to make a vandal report on the other user, I think it's best if they do it as opposed to me. -- Amazing 06:59, 23 April 2006 (BST)

• Except you aren't the judge of what's worth putting up there either, and that announcment was purely to feed your ego. Also that announcment was clearly written with a bias. This Case phails--Mpaturet 07:03, 23 April 2006 (BST)
  • Please refrain from trolling on this page. If there was any bias, it could be edited out. Deletion was not appropriate. -- Amazing 07:05, 23 April 2006 (BST)
    • As much as I loathe to admit it, he's right about editing it to be appropriate. Funny...this sounds farmiliar. --Sirens^{T RR} 07:07, 23 April 2006 (BST)
      • Chalk it up to "live and learn". -- Amazing 07:09, 23 April 2006 (BST)
  • However, it could be said that the page-creator would have some say, and they apparently thought that it should be allowed to stay... but hey, I don't think Grim S is actually in the wrong- I think the petition should be whiped anyway. --Karlsbad 07:08, 23 April 2006 (BST)
    • Yeah, I agree it should be deleted - BUT - if it's allowed to stay, we certainly need as many people voting as possible since it sets a VERY big precedent. -- Amazing 07:10, 23 April 2006 (BST)
      • I think you are wrong Amazing; it only sets a precident if it was in the Policy Discussion section. Otherwise its useless drek. -- Karlsbad 07:11, 23 April 2006 (BST)
        • Don't get me wrong, I agree on the last part - But if a Mod takes action based on the drek, then future cases of a similar nature will probably be filed since all you need is one person who dislikes the behavior of another person - and by then it'll be proven that, yes, you can be banned for being 'aggrivating.' But that's my own opinion, I'm not saying it's the only right one. I just think that if anything comes of this stuff, it'll be cited like crazy because people will see an opportinity to 'save the wiki' from whoever is the dramabomb of the moment. -- Amazing 07:16, 23 April 2006 (BST)
    • As soon as that whole proposition thing pulls through, I'm removing the petition from my User space. --Sirens^{T RR} 07:12, 23 April 2006 (BST)
• You and Mia wanted to keep it. Not surprisingly it was a petition by Mia about you. Its not a policy vote yet so it can't reasonably be said to effect all users. If it passed in its current form nothing would happen. Not to mention misconduct only applies to moderator powers and not percieved vandalism, and that it was a good faith edit. You can't just submit everybody to moderation the second you disagree with something they did. --Zaruthustra-Mod 07:13, 23 April 2006 (BST)
  • This is a Wiki and folks are allowed to post info. What's not allowed according to letter and spirit of the rules is deleting it without cause. He's officially a successful Moderator candidate, so the Misconduct page applies. Also, please keep your personal feelings out of this. (Also, does the "you can't submit everyone when you disagree with what they did" thing sound a little silly to anyone else? Just curious if it's only me.) As a mere side-note, what tells us if the vandalism was an edit or a roll-back, if anything? -- Amazing 07:16, 23 April 2006 (BST)

    • Err, I'm not sure how that follows. Moderator Abilities, by their virtue, are abilities that Moderators have and regular users don't. If he had deleted the entire Template, or even if the Template was protected and Grim edited it (ie performed an action that no regular user could perform) then I'd be satisfied that he had used a Moderator ability. The removal of the notice, while technically a "deletion" in the widest sense of the term, was more technically an "edit", and more precisely an edit of a page that was not protected.

      For future reference, the following are Moderator Abilities (ie things that Moderators 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
      • 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.
      • (Bureaucrats Only) Promotion (providing the above abilites) of User to Sysop/Bureaucrat status.
    • These are not "just created" by myself, but are technical limits set forth by the wiki software. Moderators do not, by dint of their Moderator status, have every action of theirs suddenly accountable to new systems, and this page is specifically set up to deal with abuses of these five specific abilities (and the related issue of attempting to use the threat of these abilities as a stick to enforce a Moderator's will on the wiki). In this case, I do not believe that Grim has used any of these five technical abilities, nor has he threatened the use of any of these five technical abilities to enforce his will on the wiki. -- Odd Starter ^{talk • Mod • W!} 09:04, 23 April 2006 (BST)
      • Answer the roll-back question. -- Amazing 19:15, 23 April 2006 (BST)
        • The rollback button leaves very distinct text in the description of the edit, specifically: "(Reverted edit of <name>, changed back to last version by <name2>). My edit clearly was described as: (Removing garbage). Even if i had used the rollback button, you are seriously stretching the definition of mod abuse, and in any case you would have to prove that the edit was made in bad faith, and thus vandalism in the first place. --Grim s-^Mod 19:22, 23 April 2006 (BST)

Ok, ill bite. Which one of my moderator abilities did i abuse? --Grim s-^Mod 07:34, 23 April 2006 (BST)

After some careful investigation i can conclude that i used NONE of my moderator abilities in deleting the nonsense about a trivial petition that isnt binding from a community announcements template (Because it isnt announcement worthy. If it were in Policy Discussion, sure, then it could be up there, if suitably NPOVised). Hell, i didnt even use the rollback button (As evidenced by the fact i made a comment in my deletion of the thing), so absiolutely none of my moderator powers were used. I wish to make the claim that bringing this here is an abuse of the misconduct page. If you really wanted to push for it you should have tried Vandal banning. --Grim s-^Mod 07:53, 23 April 2006 (BST)

On a lighter note, it seems that i no longer need this on my userpage:

	zOMG! MOD ABUSE!
	This User is waiting for Amazing to accuse him of Mod abuse.

And i only put it up 13 hours ago... --Grim s-^Mod 07:56, 23 April 2006 (BST)

What don't you get about the bullying stipulation in the guidelines for this page? Are you actually trying to instigate another report for whatever reason? You're a complete joke of a Moderator, and that trickles down to everyone who supported you. -- Amazing 19:15, 23 April 2006 (BST)

Where did i bully you? --Grim s-^Mod 19:29, 23 April 2006 (BST)

The Urban Dead Wiki. ;) Dude, you walked into that. -- Amazing 19:38, 23 April 2006 (BST)

Once again Amazing demonstrates he doesnt have a leg to stand on. That seems to be par for the course on this page. --Grim s-^Mod 20:03, 23 April 2006 (BST)

I'm not convinced that a misconduct has occured here, for reasons that I have listed above. -- Odd Starter ^{talk • Mod • W!} 09:04, 23 April 2006 (BST)

As I say, answer the roll-back question. -- Amazing 19:15, 23 April 2006 (BST)

The rollback button leaves very distinct text in the description of the edit, specifically: "(Reverted edit of <name>, changed back to last version by <name2>). My edit clearly was described as: (Removing garbage). Even if i had used the rollback button, you are seriously stretching the definition of mod abuse, and in any case you would have to prove that the edit was made in bad faith, and thus vandalism in the first place. --Grim s-^Mod 19:22, 23 April 2006 (BST) (Copied from above)

You proved the 'bad faith' nature in your commanty with the edit. -- Amazing 19:38, 23 April 2006 (BST)

Um... no. I felt that what was there was garbage and did not belong on the page, my comment reflected that. --Grim s-^Mod 19:42, 23 April 2006 (BST)

Just FYI - I don't really think anyone believes that. That's not to say anything will be said/done about it, but that's pretty obvious baloney. -- Amazing 19:48, 23 April 2006 (BST)

So now your entire case boils down to, essentially, "I think you are a liar". Well, consider this: I am the most qualified to know what im thinking. Personally, im wondering why you didnt go after Nubis for deleting the exact same thing earlier, or Odd Starter for deleting it yet again. After all, you have singled me out for doing something others have already done. I feel confident in stating, unequivocally, that you are the bully in this case, for singling me out with this ludicrous claim of misconduct when two other people have done the same thing with not even a peep out of you. --Grim s-^Mod 19:59, 23 April 2006 (BST)

Grim did nothing that a user couldnt have done. He simply deleted Mia's petition from the community announcements, something that any user could have done the sam. Even if he had used the rollback button (which he clearly didnt), it still wouldnt be a great deal, since that button is simply a shortcut button, that only mods can use, to revert pages. --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{[cloned] [mod]} 21:36, 23 April 2006 (BST)