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

Removed the Dunell Hills Police Department group from the Dunell Hills Group Listing and Protected the page to prevent editing. He insist that the group does not deserve to be listed because of their inability to make headway in their fight for the suburb despite not being able to cite a rule to justify his actions as valid. Has removed the group multiple times and is misusing his powers to achieve both his own ends and the ends of the adversary group (see The Dead Page) of the aforementioned DHPD. When confronted, he and others resorted to insults and accusations. I Marty Banks, challenge that Grimch is committing a gross misconduct stemming from his bias in this case and that the appropriate actions should be taken to protect the party injured from his misconduct.

The ongoing discussion is viewable here. The section below here is for voting and short statements; if you have something longer to add or discuss then I ask that you, to reduce clutter, please join the discussion I have just linked you to. --Marty Banks (aka. Mundane) <DHPD> 18:29, 30 June 2008 (BST)

Purely because that discussion is too bleeding long, and I'm just home from work so can't be arsed reading the whole thing, I shall make my comments here. Grim's removing of the group from the listings is not a Misconduct matter, it would fall under the scope of Vandal Banning (not that I am saying that it is vandalism). The protection however would come under the header of misconduct and I shall base my ruling/comments on that only.

Sysops are permitted to protect a page that is undergoing a protracted edit war as they see fit. In this case it would be the Dunell Hills group template. It also says on the protect guidelines that the page is to be reverted to the disputed edit. In this case it would be the removal of the DHPD from the listings. As a result, in my opinion, Grim has not gone any further (admin wise anyway) than is permitted. Therefore, I rule Not Misconduct.

I do however think that you should take this to arbitration and get this sorted out there. There's nothing we can do on this end to give you a decent resolution. We are sysops, not Moderators. We're here to keep the wiki in once piece, not solve disputes. Unfortunately. -- Cheese 19:22, 30 June 2008 (BST)

Long fucking post alert

I got involved because there was an edit conflict, (such things tend to annoy me) took a look a look at the existing discussion, reverted the edits that were untrue based on both that and my own independant observations (Which i sent an alt across the city to make), and locked the page for 24 hours so that actual discussion could take place. To the credit of your group, you actually maanged to hold off starting it up again for two more whole days before, but fudged it up today, at which point i locked it back down. A/G specifically states im allowed to make short term protections in the event of edit wars. In this case i was reverting to what the concensus on the page among independant observers is considered true (Specifically myself and Wan yao, who both wandered over to take a look) and protecting short term. I Have currently protected the page temporarily, and filed a protections request on A/PT so it can be more long term. That is not an abuse of power, regardless of the fact that my own opinion as one of the two people present as independant observers is being counted, we are both in complete agreement, and our observations back the deads statements).

I have heard of the DHPD, yes, you cannot have played for as long as i have and not known a group so old, but i have never interacted with your group prior to this (Or at least not to my recollection, which is essentially the same thing), and, to be quite frank, dont much care about either you or the goons. Frankly, both sides are acting like arseholes. All i want is for the issue to be resolved, and that wont happen while you post blatantly inaccurate information on the page perpetuating edit wars against others, completely ignoring comments made on the talk page by independants on the talk page. By rights i should have taken you lot to A/VB over this days ago (Knowingly and repeatedly posting false information despite being asked repeatedly not to by others whos only inetrest is seeing the matter resolved), but i have held off because i wanted to settle the matter peacefully.

The only reason you are alleging bias is because my examination shows you to be wrong. Given that Dunell Hills is presently deader than any suburb ever has been in all of the games history with such a large local zombie population that any attempt to establish a base would be met with immediate and lethal reprisals within hours, and a population that has, by all accounts, lingered there for months, i dont see how any other conclusion can be reached (In my three days in the area i did not hear a single groan). If i appear to be getting progressively more hostile it is because i have very little tolerance for foolishness and sloppy thinking, and you and most of your cohorts have been presenting precisely that in droves.

You have entirely failed to present any factual evidence, or even strong reasoning to include yourselves as an active human group. When challenged on that fact you have continually evaded the query. When presented with independant observations to the contrary of your oft repeated assertions you have ignored them. In the light of such behaviour, you can probably understand why i am losing my patience with you.

This is, at best, a case for arbitration. I have simply reverted what i see as damned close to vandalism (If not actually being such) and locked a page down to prevent more of the same while repeatedly attempting to engage in and promoting intelligent discourse in resolving the issue peacably. The only one of you who has acted like an adult in this entire affair is Ezekiel UK

I am not a member of the Dead. I do not care about the Dead, all i did was step into an active conflict i saw while browsing recent changes which was annoying me by its mere existance. Your assertions to the contrary are Ipse Dixit, without proof provided (Not suprising because such proof is nonexistant).

As i said on the page repeatedly: There are no hard and fast determining factors to get you onto a page. Such things can only be determined by concensus: The concensus on the page, among the people and independant observers (Whos opinions, frankly, have a higher value than the involved parties do, as they dont have a specific agenda for or against one side or the other), is that you are not there, or at least not there in a manner that is meaningful, and the fact you have been forced out for months means listing you on the active groups is at best misleading, at worst intentionally so. This you ignore. The weight of arguments and evidence also falls against you. This you ignore. I welcome more observers to come by and examine the suburb and have a look, so long as they promise to be impartial.

In summing up: Marty banks has made a lot of assertions, both here and there. Among them is the assertion that bias is a key determining factor in my decision. This is an assertion he has completely and utterly failed to back up with anything even remotely approaching evidence. None of my conduct has been in violation of the guidelines, and i have been open minded in the discussion, examining the evidence the whole time. The key problem here is that they simply havent provided any, simply repeating an assertion ad nauseam.

I would very much support a policy that can actually provide definitions on what groups require to qualify as listed in a suburb, but i think its fairly safe to say that if two observers cant find anything but a trace of human presence (One level 2 survivor with 12hp and an infection being eaten), and all evidence indicates that the suburb has been dead for months and that the survivor group isnt there, then in the minds of even the most liberal of observers, the conclusion would be that they simply arent present as a force in the suburb (Except as zombies) and should not be listed as a survivor group active there, as such a label is completely misleading as to the state of affairs in the suburb.

This wiki is intended as an accurate tool for examining the game. And while at times we do fall short, that doesnt mean we should permit inaccuracy when it is found and being promoted by those with a vested interest in the outcome.

The only "personal attack" i have engaged in is making the accusation that his whole play there is an ego salve. I could very well be wrong, but i doubt it. He has failed to provide evidence to back up his position despite repeated requests to do so. And now instead of doing so he is accusing me of misconduct. I have not gone beyond my mandate in this affair. There is no misconduct here, just one mans delusion of bias. And my opinion of him falls yet another notch.

There is only one possible grounds upon which this could be considered misconduct: attempts to treat the status of sysop as a badge of authority to force a sysop's wishes on the wiki, This is not the case. While i have used my abilities to protect the page, those were due to active edit wars that would have gone on regardless of my intervention, and i locked it on the ones i and another have independantly verified as the truth. Thats not misconduct. The only way i have used my position as a sysop in this discussion is to force everyone to the table to discuss the issue instead of having a fucking edit war, which i stomped pretty damned quick, almost before it could begin. Thats not an abuse of power or station. --The Grimch ^{U! E! WAT!} 19:32, 30 June 2008 (BST)

:O That is one long post. -- Cheese 19:43, 30 June 2008 (BST)

Active or not I think it can safely be assumed that a long standing and obviously still active group like the DHPD will have an interest in the area.... just because their plans to re-take the suburb are (presumably) taking place outside its borders does not make them inactive in that 'burb. Any plans they have will revolve around taking back their proclaimed home and as such they are actively involved in its fate. Un-grouped survivors might well be very interested in finding a group who are looking to retake the suburb and surely that is enough to warrant them getting their mention... assuming of course that they cannot openly advertise as actively seeking recruits on that page?--Honestmistake 00:16, 1 July 2008 (BST)

Did you even read what you wrote? You are basically saying that just because the group wants to be there they can whether or not they actually are. That doesn't make sense. Do I need to remind you all that you banned members of the Dead for making a [category] and adding suburbs to it because the Dead was active there, yet it seems to be ok for DHPD to add themselves to any suburb as an active group? So, can I add DARIS back to Shearbank since we might have plans to retake the suburb even though a member of DARIS hasn't been alive in Shearbank since November? That's the same as DHPD.

And I want to point out that Dury Building NT has been listed on the Eastonwood Ferals/Almanac as a new level of decay. Small vines and weeds are growing in the wreckage. It is up to 32 AP to repair (per EF). They need to step up those plans a bit.

As far as Grim is concerned this is Not Misconduct. He stopped an active edit war. That's what he is supposed to do. As far as his observations on the suburb I don't see him as trying to moderate, just inject some common sense into the heads of those involved. --– Nubis ^NWO 03:02, 1 July 2008 (BST)

I tend to agree that its not misconduct and I also tend to agree that a group with no active involvement in a suburb should not be allowed to list themselves in the active groups box... however, surely in this case it is obvious that the DHPD are of active interest to those looking at the suburb? They took their name from it and until the Dead came along they did a pretty good job of keeping it reasonably safe. While they exist as a large group it is obvious that they are still going to be involved with the suburb and I think we should let that count for a lot in this specific case (which should be at arbies)--Honestmistake 17:15, 1 July 2008 (BST)

The Dead took their name from Dunell Hills (originally called The Dead of Dunell Hills) and they exist as a larger group. By your logic they should get preferential treatment, too. And it is quite clear that the Dead are actually active in the suburb. So why the survivor bias? The Dead have been in DH since before November. So it doesn't look like they are going to leave anytime soon. There is no way this can go to Arbys. There is not a single person on that list that both sides would agree to. --– Nubis ^NWO 05:27, 2 July 2008 (BST)

I am not arguing for preferential treatment nor for keeping a survivor bias. What I am suggesting is that a group so intimately connected with a suburb as to name themselves after it has a place on that suburbs page. Survivor or Zombie it really doesn't matter, physical presence is not the only factor to be weighed in judging involvement... By your arguement the American people have no involvement with Iran because they are not there, no involvement with North Korea because they are not there and no involvement with the moon because they are not there. Thats somantics and I think we all know it, tell me how having the DHPD listed as an active group with a strong tie to the suburb is untrue let alone harmful to the wiki. The info on the page expands the picture and anyone visiting the page is going to do more than just look at the active groups boxes and quickly form their own opinion of just how involved the DHPD is in a suburb with 100% (or near as dammit) ransack/ruins! --Honestmistake 09:49, 2 July 2008 (BST)

I just realized that you aren't a sysop and in the long run on this page your (ill informed and survivor biased) opinion doesn't matter. I'm going to stop pointing out how insane your "logic" is and let you go back to your little world where all you need is hope and a dream to get things done. Your attitude is a prime example of why this place isn't a really a wiki. Wikis strive for something called "facts" and "the truth". Thanks for reinforcing that this is just a poorly constructed RP fagging about forum and not a good source of information about Urban Dead. You know, there really ought to be an OFFICIAL WIKI that presents the facts about Malton. --– Nubis ^NWO 22:04, 2 July 2008 (BST)

Gee thanks for valuing the voice of the community you Asshat! I really don't know where to start... should it be your assumption that my opinion is worth squat because i am not a sysop? Maybe that my "insane logic" in pointing out the actual meaning of the word "involved" or perhaps the simple fact that you just accused a player with 6 zombies, 1 death cultist and 1 Altruist survivor alt as being ill informed and survivor biased! It would be funny if it were not so pathetic! The fact is that they seem to be actively fighting for a presence in the suburb and are probably just as active in trying to rally additional support to help them make inroads... They are not being successful but that really is not the same as not trying. I ask again "what harm does it do to leave them flagged as a group who are active in the suburb when the actual reports show their activity is failing utterly to make even a dent in the deads dominance?" Answer = None, as long as people visiting the page actually bother to read the situation reports! Now ask "what harm does removing them from the box do?" Answer = tells folk visiting the page that there are no actively interested survivor groups that are worth contacting for advice (support) on entering the suburb... this is demonstrably untrue, the DHPD are very aware that the place is a zombie infested hell hole that they have been unable to retake in months. The fact that they have no active stronghold within the burb does not mean they are not scouting the area, it does not mean they do not make futile attack runs to injure/HS a few sleepy zeds and it in no way proves that they are not actively pursuing goals in the suburb. I say again point out how my logic is flawed (try doing so without insult if you can manage!) I have made a pretty good case which your yelling "None sysop = stoopid" at doesn't challenge. Yelling "Trenchie" also doesn't cut it and merely saying you are going to stop pointing out the flaws in my logic doesn't actually work when you never started to do so --Honestmistake 23:57, 2 July 2008 (BST)

Thanks for missing the point. you aren't a sysop and in the long run on this page your (ill informed and survivor biased) opinion doesn't matter. But you know what, I will apologize for the "ill informed and survivor biased" comment. Perhaps that was very assholey of me. I shouldn't allow myself to insult people over a difference of opinion, however, this is hot button for me. So, I'm sorry. Yet, I stand by the fact that your opinion doesn't matter on this page since you aren't a sysop and can't rule. And by that I mean you have the right to state it, but that the only one that should respond to it if he wants to is Grim. There is no need to engage you in a discussion on your feelings on this because ultimately you have no direct influence over the outcome. You won't be a deciding vote.--– Nubis ^NWO 11:35, 3 July 2008 (BST)

Thanks for the apology, it is appreciated. I took offence mostly because regardless of whether I am able to rule on this case, my (and anyone else's) opinion does matter. The reason that all discussion/input in misconduct cases is held on this page rather than just those directly involved is surely for that very reason. Any member of the community who feels they have a point to make should be encouraged to make it in misconduct cases because it is the closest we have to a way of holding the admin team accountable. I happen to agree with you that Grim has not commited an act of misconduct but I can see how others might think he has. Basically I think protecting the page was needed but he does seem to have taken sides... if this is found Not Misconduct but no argument is made as to which side was right in the edit war to begin with then that ruling will be used to claim that the DHPD were wrong. That is not the case and would be a bad precedent to make. As none of the sysop team were making that point until Swiers joined in I think it was a point that needed making. While it may not change the ruling in this (or any other) case it is absolutely the right place to voice my opinion in the assumption that the sysops who do make judgement will read it and take it into consideration when making that ruling.--Honestmistake 13:41, 3 July 2008 (BST)

Two things, 1) Grim I'm not reading a long complaint about everyone involved, if there's something you want us to know that you expect to get read make it only about why the actions are justifiable, be concise for once, or at least what that is for you. 2) This is very very easy, considering I'm sure if it was anyone else you'd say the same thing; Don't moderate, that's not your job. --Karek^maps?! 01:23, 1 July 2008 (BST)

You planning on ruling? --brb, church ^{DORIS CGR U!} 01:58, 1 July 2008 (BST)

Its a complicated case and theres a lot of ground to cover to explain everything. If you are going to tl;dr in a misconduct case you may as well not post. If you had read any of it you would have seen that half the shit you have said is incorrect. --The Grimch ^{U! E! WAT!} 04:49, 1 July 2008 (BST)

Relevance to the case ended in the first paragraph, so no, I was quite far the opposite of incorrect, hissy fit much? Just like with Conndraka's actions in the past, Misconduct, You aren't given the ability to protect pages to give you the end all be all decision of what is and isn't fact, much less to lock a page on a disputed edit with the excuse of preventing an edit war(that's the exact opposite of a helpful edit/action). You haven't stopped anything, at best you've actually made things worse and abused the protection ability in the process, arbitration exists for a reason.--Karek^maps?! 06:12, 1 July 2008 (BST)

Did you even chack the archive? It was This case and it was ruled not misconduct (By yourself). Just like his case you say? Then stick with the same ruling. Please examine A/G#Protection_of_Pages where it is explicitely stated: System operators may only protect pages that users have requested be protected on UDWiki:Administration/Protections, or (for a short period, and without the need for a protection request) high-visibility pages that are undergoing repeated vandalism., given the repeated false claims being made (Which you would know if you ahd read the post above), what was being done by them was, if not direct vandalism, bloody close to it. I locked it down twice as a result of that, and have filed a request that its lock be upgraded to a month long. Id like some action to be taken on that request, thank you very much, instead of it being ignored by all the sysops. Id also very much like some internal consistancy from you. --The Grimch ^{U! E! WAT!} 07:33, 1 July 2008 (BST)

Wrong, there is a far closer case that I have given Conndraka considerable shit over in the past, I'm not sure if it ever made it to misconduct but that is what I am referring to. As for the other, if it was vandalism you would have filed a vandal report, it's not a new issue, this is the same basic fight they've been having for about 9 months now.--Karek^maps?! 07:53, 1 July 2008 (BST)

Dont accuse me of misconduct just because its similiar to another case that you didnt bring. Also, if you had read what i said in my post, you would know why i didnt actually report it. See, things would be easier if you read the fucking background i gave you. Read it, understand it,, and at the least make an informed decision. Or you can fuck off and take your half cocked ruling with you. --The Grimch ^{U! E! WAT!} 08:01, 1 July 2008 (BST)

I didn't rule the first time because I hadn't read it and wanted to give you a chance to actually defend your position, I ruled the second time because you obviously refused to organize your thoughts by relevance forcing me to read your absurd block of text.

You played moderator, locked it on a disputed edit, circumvented arbitration, and want it to not be misconduct because you think the DHPD people are full of shit, the precedent has been that we revert to before the disputed edit in an edit war, it's very basic knowledge, you know this, Conndraka knows this, I know this, Everyone that is or has ever been a Sysop or regular contributer to the wiki knows this. What you do not do is lock it to prevent reverting from the edit or editor you agree with.--Karek^maps?! 10:39, 1 July 2008 (BST)

The before disputed edit has never been enshrined in policy, thus miscondicting me bsed on that alone is highly dubious. You can call me a rules lawyer all you like, but ad hominem does not an argument make. You have completely misread both the tone and intent of my post above, in which i detailed the incident, all the twists and turns, my reasoning for not doing certain things like taking them to A/VB (Which you made a fuss over above, clearly demonstrating that you havent read the thing, paragraph 4, i didnt explicitely spell it out but it still stands, and i made the point at least once more in the post). Yes, while when there is a dispute, it is customary to revert to before that dispute, but when one is patently and blatantly falsifying information (As determined by two independant observers) ict can quite realistically be seen as vandalism, and reverting to before the vandalism before protecting is also appropriate. You may not agree with that judgement, but you cant misconduct me for it.

I shall reiterate: I had absolutely no opinion either way when i went in, and while i may now think of the DHPD as a bunch of dicks (With one notable exception so far), that is entirely due to their childish behaviour in the dispute. While we are not moderators, theres nothing prohibiting us or anyone else from taking the role of mediator on a dispute. Saying we arent moderators is an empty point, a red herring using weighted words to give your position the appeance of extra substance while adding nothing of the sort.

To put it quite succinctly: Your case that this is misconduct fails on the grounds that none of the things you are saying i did violated the guidelines, combined with an implied ad hominem you actually came out and used on me in IRC.

There is no real real dispute over the edit here. There are people who have come and independantly checked and found that the DHPD are full of shit on this issue. Im one of them. I fully encourage everyone to send a zombie over to have a look, hang around for a few days, go door to door. You will see this. This is not an edit dispute where both sides have a case, its one where something has been independantly checked and verified by multiple people, and the group it affects is being intentionally deceptive in order to salve their wounded egos, which is how this conflict has arisen. There is absolutely no difference between what they were doing, and rewriting skills pages to display phoney information, or rearranging the suburb map. The DHPD have been given every opportunity to prove thier case, and have declined every single time. Given that a suburb page is intended to provide factual information as its a resource for players, intentionally posting misleading information is, at least in my book, vandalism, i treated it as such and reverted it, and locked the page.

But yby all means, please ignore this post just like you did the last. It looks long. --The Grimch ^{U! E! WAT!} 11:11, 1 July 2008 (BST)

You mean the "Ad Hominem" where I called you a rules lawyer for exactly this kind of thing? Cute. You can't just ignore standard procedure when it suits you, hmm, now where have I heard that before?--Karek^maps?! 12:48, 1 July 2008 (BST)

Ah, excellent. You ignored everything else i said, exactly as i anticipated. Way to prove me wro... ohwai... --The Grimch ^{U! E! WAT!} 12:54, 1 July 2008 (BST)

Not Ruling But still... Its interesting to see that I was brought up on misconduct for doing the same thing...yet I was accused of being slanted for the DHPD for stopping an edit war that strangely enough I had verified myself as well... hmmmm Bias only swings one way I guess. Conndraka^{mod TTBA CFT} 03:42, 1 July 2008 (BST)

Don't play the innocent here, Conn. You want to talk misconduct? How about the Dead of Dunell Hills deletion/protection/redirect and workaround shit that you pulled? You are as slanted to DHPD as I am to the Dead. At least, I don't use my sysop powers to fuck over DHPD like you did to The Dead. --– Nubis ^NWO 05:27, 2 July 2008 (BST)

As someone involved in the edit war and conflict wafting around Dumbell Hills, I'm piping in... First of all, please refer to this, from the page on sysop conduct etc., a part you's above left out: "Before a page is protected, it is expected that the system operator will ensure that there is good reason for its protection — these include protracted edit wars, and constant vandalism by multiple users on a high-visibility page." Such a protracted edit war was going on. I know. I was, like, there. So this peanut gallerian would say, if he were allowed, Not Fucking Misconduct. Frankly, while I wonder whether Grimch could have dealt with all of this better... I also wonder why he is the only sysop who's taken a real stand on this bullshit wiki edit pissing contest that has been going on literally for MONTHS, on and off, between the DHPD and the Dead? Seriously, folks, it's out of control. Start dealing with it. --WanYao 12:44, 1 July 2008 (BST) Addendum: It may have been much better form to ask another sysop for protection. Because Grimch was involved, after all, in the "dispute". His objectivity or alleged lack thereof totally notwithstanding and rather irrelevant -- he was involved. However, bad form is a "soft warning" and a firm "don't do this again". Not misconduct. My not so humble opinion. --WanYao 12:56, 1 July 2008 (BST)

I would have thought that, in an edit war, the done thing would have been to revert to the original version - Grim seems to have let his own bias as to what he felt was the more accurate stand in the way of this. As to our pissing contest with the dead - we've only jumped in when they start trying to get in our faces on the wiki and have not been giving them a hard time outside of these cases. Sanpedro 13:10, 1 July 2008 (BST)

Ok, on that issue I can see your point. Because the edit war started -- and I was involved then! -- when the DHPD was first taken off the list. However, was he aware of when the war actually started? Dunno... so, he may have been reverting to what he thought was the last edit. But this is all speculation. And there are two concrete issues here: a) was he acting in bad faith? and b) was he going against the policy? I'm just a peanut gallerian, but I answer no to both... But... one more thing... who started all this isn't the issue anymore, IMO. By this time, both "sides" involved has acted inappropriately. One side perhaps more than the other, but 1 wrong plus 1-1/2 wrongs still don't make a right. Really, this needs to go to Arby. That's where it belongs, all said and done. --WanYao 13:25, 1 July 2008 (BST)

If you truly believe that, after the lengths he's gone to discredit DHPD's position, you need an urgent reality check. --brb, church ^{DORIS CGR U!} 15:45, 1 July 2008 (BST)

Nice use of loaded terms to make an ad hominem out of thin air. I went to great lengths to get an accurate picture of the suburb alongside that presented by another individual, WanYao to be specific, the fact that this picture completely undercut the DHPD's position was purely coincidental. Had it been the other way around i would have argued just as strongly in their favour. The accusations of bias floating around have no basis in reality, and seem to be coming about simply because i didnt beat up on the goons with everyone else like a good little sysop when it was open season on them, and instead acted like a rational human being, which combined with the truth that the facts just dont fit the DHPD's case makes the ignorant numbskulls such as yourself think "OMG! BIAS!!!1!!oneone oh noes!". In any case, i fail to see why the burden of proof is on me to prove that im not biased here rather than on the person making the bloody accusation in the first place. --The Grimch ^{U! E! WAT!} 16:38, 1 July 2008 (BST)

I suggest you learn the definition of "ad hominem" before embarrassing yourself any further. --brb, church ^{DORIS CGR U!} 16:48, 1 July 2008 (BST)

I agree that one of us needs to look it up, however you are the one in need of it. Implied Ad Hominem attack on myself as well as a direct one on WanYao by asserting he has no grip on reality because of the conclusions he has reached, with nothing there to support that assertion, or even contradict what he has said. That is the entire meat of your post. In so doing theres the personal attack on me implied. Hows about you stop embarrasing yourself? Go find another place to go troll. I hear Tselita is good for lulz these days. --The Grimch ^{U! E! WAT!} 16:52, 1 July 2008 (BST)

Again, I suggest you look it up. It is not merely a "personal attack". --brb, church ^{DORIS CGR U!} 19:58, 1 July 2008 (BST)

And i wasnt using it as such you neanderthallic buffoon. I explained it perfectly clearly above: An attempt to discredit a position by referring to the person. In this case by saying they muct be losing their grip on reality to have reached a particular conclusion. --The Grimch ^{U! E! WAT!} 20:05, 1 July 2008 (BST)

I feel that Grimch's action is not misconduct in this case, but I do think arbitration of the edit war is needed. Personally I'd side with DHPD, provided they can demonstrate (informally) they have a decent number of members in the suburb. The fact that they can't currently accomplish any of their stated goals in that suburb, does not in itself make them inactive in that suburb; it just makes them unsuccessful there. The fact that the Dead are proud of keeping them from re-taking the suburb in fact goes to prove that they ARE active there; you can't defeat an inactive group.
A "decent number" in this case would be more 10, I'd asy; enough to show up as a group on the stats page.) This should go for ALL claims of suburb activity, IMO; if your group members in a given burb wouldn't even show on the stats page if they formed thier own group, you shouldn't be gunking up the sidebar with your icon. I think we probably need a policy about this, and while we are at it, we might as well make it a policy to regularly remove ALL such icons from ALL suburb pages, so that people have to "refresh" them occasionally. And they probably should be included from a sub-page of the suburb, ratyher than edited directly onto the suburb page. That way we could just periodically blank the sub-pages. I'll work on writing up said policy.  Swiers 20:43, 2 July 2008 (BST)

Misconduct - Grim himself got involved in an edit war, and rather than taking it to arbitration and requesting the protection on A/PT, he used his sysop powers to lock the page himself to silence the regular users that disagreed with his interpretation of what a pro-survivor presence in the suburb was. The guidelines allow us to lock pages for a short time for pages that are being vandalised, not for conflicts that should go to arbitration -- boxy ^{talk • i} 02:49 3 July 2008 (BST)

And you are basing your ruling in direct opposition to the statement i made about them posting knowingly false information on the page which i treated as vandalism and reverted (This is not a new line, i said that it was vandalism in my first post on the issue), and locked the page up to prevent it from happening again. You disagree that its vandalism and base your ruling purely on that disagreement (Summary: You are letting your personal bias in the issue at hand cloud your judgement of how i handled the affair officially). Good call... ohwai... --The Grimch ^{U! E! WAT!} 04:12, 3 July 2008 (BST)

They didn't post knowingly false info. They replaced themselves as a pro-survivor group with members in the area (there is no requirement for them to be alive at the time to be pro-survivor in intent, mrh? cows are still pro-survivor). They didn't post that the buildings weren't ruined, they didn't post that they were protecting anyone, only that they were still in the suburb. The Dead were still attacking them, so they were still there, and worthy of inclusion in the group listings -- boxy ^{talk • i} 15:01 8 July 2008 (BST)

Direct opposition to a statement doesn't make the opposing statement wrong. --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 04:21, 3 July 2008 (BST)

It is to Grim. I'm surprised you didn't know that already. --brb, church ^{DORIS CGR U!} 11:57, 3 July 2008 (BST)

Did so! --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 15:46, 3 July 2008 (BST)

At that stage i hadnt even formed a personal opinion of the matter. I was trusting the then only independant observers opinion, as he was independant and had made several anti goon statements on suggestions (Thus demonstrating he wasnt sucking up to them). I later confirmed his observations with an alt of my own, after the first page lock. The fact that one of the member openly admitted that they were not there on the page makes it more than qualify as vandalism, the sole reason i didnt take it to A/VB being because i actually wanted to work out the issue without opening it up to being a mega drama clusterfuck. Other reasons as to why i considered it vandalism have been mentioned previously, another being down in my next post below (Same timestamp) --The Grimch ^{U! E! WAT!} 12:01, 3 July 2008 (BST)

Not Misconduct, but barely. It's irrelevant if you think they are there or not, the point is to stop an edit war. Given all the drama surrounding the DHPD, the Dead, and POV, I think Grim was justified in protecting the page. Perhaps poor form to use his abilities to completely silence the other, seeing as he was the one who was in conflict. He did take it upon himself to show his reasons on A/PT about the second lock (after locking it for a single day). I don't believe he was using his powers to win the argument. --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 04:21, 3 July 2008 (BST)

I didnt completely silence the other side. If i were shutting down one side or the other i would be protecting the talk page too, which i didnt. Instead i encouraged discussion and the presentation of evidence to either side, and discouraged edit warring by both sides (by protecting). I stand by all my previous statements, from the start, that posting knowingly incorrect information on primary informational pages is vandalism, as this wiki is meant to be an information source for players, not a place for people to swell and show off their e-penii. --The Grimch ^{U! E! WAT!} 12:01, 3 July 2008 (BST)

I fail to understand how this is not misconduct... grim was the one creating the edit conflict, and any pages with edit conflict should remain as they were before the conflict began (in this case, with the DHPD being listed there). If grim's wanted the page to remain as he wanted, HE was the one who should create an arbie case, not marty. Grim clearly abused his powers there, by protecting the page as he wanted it to be. --People's Commissar Hagnat ^talk 18:11, 3 July 2008 (BST)

You don't have the facts right, Haggis. In fact, I am the one who started the edit war, imo justifiably so, with this edit. At the time, I took the Dead at their word and left the DHPD off, but did it in an NPOV manner. While taking a slag at the trolls, of course... Anyhoo... Go look at the rest of the history.. Grim stepped in AFTER all this. Grim stepped to stop an edit war on a highly visible page. What's pathetic is that I know the rules better than half of you sysops... Grim's actions are ALLOWED, possibly ENCOURAGED, according to your fucking rules. Grim may have acted out of line and in very bad, heavy-handed form -- and I think he did -- but according to the rules (and imo their spirit) it is not fucking misconduct. Barely.... If he does something similar again... well... that's a different story... Smack him down in that case. --WanYao 02:38, 4 July 2008 (BST)

Ok I know I'm starting to sound like a troll suddenly popping up on half a dozen talk pages but here's my personal view:

• It started with the Dead removing us from the page, citing that we hadn't managed to get a live survivor inside a building for '3 months'. This fact is grossly exaggerated, as I already showed in a screenshot of our forum, it was closer to 30-40 days. We (as a group) couldn't possibly deny this, the facts speak for themselves.
• The argument started because The Dead feel that the 'Known pro-survivors in this suburb' list refers to actual, live human survivors. Throughout the course of the dispute, the point was repeatedly raised that dead members of the DHPD also count as being a 'DHPD presence'. Thus, the argument then became 'but there aren't any dead DHPD in the suburb either'.
• A member of *The Dead* then posted a screenshot of one of our officers attacking him, in Dunell Hills, as a zombie. He also said that he had been doing it for some time. This is part of a tactic we're running to soften up the buildings so we can repair them, while the rest of our members try and get the surrounding area reasonably safe enough to capitalise on the weaknesses exposed. The argument then became 'one dead officer and scouting runs don't count'.
• If you look at the Dead's public threads on UD, you'll see that they're quite aware of more than one member of the DHPD in the suburb, they're just failing to mention this in their argument.
• The 'independent verifiers' that keep getting referred to, are 2 people that looked around all of Dunell Hills and observed that all the buildings are ruined and open. No shit. What they didn't see (what they are unable to see) are the DHPD members that are dead in the suburb, and the live ones that pop in and out to scout on a daily basis.
• I would appreciate if people stop quoting me when I said 'we admit we're not in the suburb'. It's completely out of context, at the time we were arguing about whether the DHPD had a substantial *live* presence in the suburb. That was before someone pointed out the whole 'pro-survivor, not live survivor' debate (a point that was actually raised at great length further down the page, which I stupidly forgot about when arguing our case against Grim and The Dead).

So anyway yes, I think Grim went off half-cocked and backed The Dead's side despite their argument being inherently flawed, and if he had held off on the locking and allowed it to develop a bit further, he would have found that it was not as clear cut a decision as he obviously felt. That being said, myself and other DHPD were slow to actually put our finger on the exact reason they were wrong, so for the first day or two of headbutting, we were arguing in vague emotional terms instead of laying down actual facts for proof. Still, at the time I knew the debate was only just begginning and that one way or another it was going to end with us being put back on the page, so I was more than a little miffed to see the page locked with the disputed post intact. Still, I don't understand what a misconduct ruling is going to achieve.. Ezekiel UK 19:41, 3 July 2008 (BST)

Even if now the argument now stands differently (I havent actually had time to check in the last three days, what with work and various RL issues), at the time what i protected the page as was very much the case. If you had simply made your case instead of nattering on and avouiding it for a week or so, then perhaps this excessive dramamfest could have been avoided. As it stands, no one on your side tried, wan and I went up, looked around, and found that aboslutely nothing pro human was going on in the area (ZKing is not inherently pro human, and is a perfectly viable "I want exp" tactic for zombies. I Zked yesterday in an indoor revive clinic to soak up more needles, but if we are going to use it as a definer of zombie intent, well, the Dead got me day 1). At the time you had very much failed to make your case. At the time you had nothing on your side except an assertion. As such i made the decision i did and locked it when you repeatedly posted what appeared to be false information on the page. I Only use uncertain terms here because i have not had and do not have the time to examine the argument further on the talk page, and thus havent the foggiest what has happened since then. --The Grimch ^{U! E! WAT!} 04:11, 4 July 2008 (BST)

Since then, we've been put back on the page and the argument that we shouldn't be there died 2 days ago. The point is you didn't actually give anyone time to make a proper argument, you leapt straight in on an assumption - and scarily, at no point did it occur to you that the Dunell Hills Police Department being taken off the Dunell Hills suburb page was strange or wrong in some way (even when several of them immediately kicked up a stink over it). You completely misinterpreted the purpose of group templates on suburb pages, and I personally would expect more from a beaurecrat since you're supposed to *know* that stuff, I'm not. You didn't take a neutral POV but instead assumed that the assertation members of The Dead had made (we haven't seen a live survivor of theirs in 3 months, therefore they should be taken off') was correct. If you had been neutral, you would have attempted to actually argue our case as well instead of going 100% pro zombie endgame domination on us. It should be obvious that they want to remove as many traces of the DHPD from the wiki to cement their concept of 'we win they lose', and the Dead are a lot more organised about that stuff than we are so alarm bells should have been ringing straight away. I knew we were going to win the argument one way or another because it's patently ridiculous, for way more than one reason. If you'd waited it out, or locked the page with the *contested* edit intact to allow the debate to progress before an authoritative decision was made, you would not have been able to make the decision you made, because it would clearly have been wrong. I don't mind you arguing the point against us, but if you're going to do it in the future you'll need to ask a sysop to do the locking and protecting. Actually when you were denied the 30 day lock you requested it should have been pretty clear that you were stepping over the line. :P

Anyway I'm done with discussing, too much UDwiki is bad for your health. I'd like for you to be able to just admit you were wrong and move on Grim, but I appreciate you can't really do that when we're on your misconduct trial page. Putting aside all the protections, locks and accusations, this has been quite a healthy and needed discussion, so I hope the upshot is that future 'issues' with groups and their template links will be a hell of a lot clearer.. Ezekiel UK 12:26, 4 July 2008 (BST)

I was neutral to start with. I dont care about the dead, i dont care about you. In that sense i still am neutral. The problem is that when i went and checked i was confronted by something: The fact you werent there. The fact you yourself had said your group wasnt there only a few days previously, the fact i couldnt find any survivors there, the fact that the suburb was entirely obliterated and at hideous levels of ruin meant that on that particular issue, i was going to follow what my eyes told me. I never said that this was the way it was and shut everything down. I said this is what i and other uninvolveds see, please cease editing the page until you can prove that you are there (Which you failed to do, forcing me to lock it), and then you guys dicked around for more than a week. If it takes a week for you to unveil the locations of your super secret dont care about being killed zombies, well thats pretty pathetic. I personally do not buy the whole "We are there as zombies" argument because as zombies you cant do anything pro survivor (Headshotting a zombie is better than ZKing it, and your presence inside a building as a zombie prevents it from being repaired). Thats an opinion, and its equally valid as anyone elses, perhaps more so given the reasoning presented. The fact that others disagree with me on a subject where there is nothing clearly defined doesnt mean i am wrong. Why did i accept the three months thing? Because you never challenged it. If you dont want things to be believed, attack them. Failure to do so indicates to any observer that you are not contesting the allegation, which means it is highly likely to be taken to be the truth. Thats a failure on your part, not mine.

As it stood, what i saw was a bunch of whiners up against a bunch of trolls, and the trolls had made their case, the evidence supported them, and the whiners didnt care and were adding anyway. I treated that as vandalism and reverted it, and locked the page in the unvandalised state. The fact that you contest its status as vandalism is immaterial.

Also, dont read too much into your being back on the page. Karek unilaterally did that, thinking wikipedias guidelines applied here and completely ignoring the statrements i had made on this case prior to that edit. Doing so without an edit request on A/PT is quite probably misconduct.

Your shot at me being a crat and thus should "know" what isnt defined anywhere is laughable. What magic senses should i have obtained to allow me to see the truth of the undefined upon my promotion? Id really like them. Can someone please call the shipping company and get them to get a fucking move on? The purpose of the page is purely informational. Its meant to give an accurate picture of the suburb to any people examining the wiki. The fact that such accuracy is never perfect is beside the point. We can simply make it as accurate as possible. I do not see how your desire to include yourselves when you admitted you werent there constitutes undermining that singular purpose. At the very least its egotistical dickwaving, at the worst its deliberately and intentionally misleading egotistical dickwaving.

It might be worth noting that this wiki has an immense pro survivor bias in its population and stances. This is because the zombies think its a fucking hole and have nothing to do with it. The sole exception being The Dead. Thus, when you consider general trends on the wiki, you need to bear this factor in mind. But dont take my word for it. Visit the zombie channels on irc.nexuswar.com and ask them. Im not joking, go and ask them what they think of the wiki. It should be informative to say the least.

As for the rest: Did i think there was something wrong with removing the DHPD from DH? No. Did i think that it was wrong if you were making a stink? No. You failed to provide evidence for a week after being asked, instead reposting simple assertions of your presence over and over. That didnt strike me as a valid complaint, but as a stink being caused by peoples egos being bruised. If you had presented the evidence when asked, instead of waiting a week in which time you could have shifted alts in from all over, then ot would have been another story entirely. Its a shame that it took so long for anything remotely evidencial to be posted, and it does not reflect well on your group, though thats mostly aside from the affair. --The Grimch ^{U! E! WAT!} 12:55, 4 July 2008 (BST)

Seriously come to our IRC, we don't bite, much and there will probably be afew faces you recognise, isn't space_butler knocking around a DHPD alt. IRC is Internet Really Chat, its a chat room basically. Come check it out, this is a browser based IRC client, its fast, you can use it to join the irc channels, check out any of the following channels, "rrf-ud" "mob" "sanitarium". No excuses!--KOOKY 22:53, 4 July 2008 (BST)

LOL. --brb, church ^{DORIS CGR U!} 01:46, 5 July 2008 (BST)

Heh, you're using the NW IRC server? Grim you've just done exactly what I said not to do, for the 3rd time, which is to quote me saying 'The DHPD aren't in Dunell Hills' out of context. The whole tone of what I was saying was 'just because its ruined and we're all dead doesn't mean you can take us off the list'. It was the opening statement for what was obviously going to be another long dispute, and everything I said then and shortly after was in reference to us being *alive* in Dunell Hills. I said that we didn't have live feet in the suburb, but at the end of the day that didn't matter because we are always constantly striving to return again and again, in one form or another. I didn't straight away nullify your argument by saying 'we have actual members in Dunell Hills but they're dead, but that still technically counts as being there' because I felt there were a lot more reasons, reasons of just simple basic common sense, that said that what the Dead were doing was plain wrong. I'd rather persuade someone of THAT than just try and argue about finnicky rules. You don't see DHPD shitting all over the wiki and other's pages with libelous digs at other groups.

Now just go back and read what you wrote:

"Ok, unless the DHPD can show proof of their presence and survival in the suburb in significant numbers and for a protracted period of time without getting slaugheterd every one or two days, you can add yourself to the page. If not, and you persist in editing the template to add yourselves, i will protect it and take you to A/VB. Im sick of this stupid edit war, and it ends now. --The Grimch U! E! WAT! 15:57, 26 June 2008 (BST)" (sorry dunno how to make things quotes).

So yes, you asked for proof. Sadly you were talking right out yer arse so we decided we weren't going to bend over backwards providing you with your evidence when what you were asking for was ridiculous and irrelevant. Survival in the suburb, significant numbers, protracted period? It sounds to me like you just made up some kind of rules that you liked and then harrassed us to provide evidence to the contrary. So yes, we argued that no, we didn't have to provide evidence of us being there alive and in significant numbers for a protracted length of time, because if that were the case then half the groups in the wiki should be removed at one time or another, including the RRF from Ridleybank. And saying that you trusted the word of the only independent unbiased observer is great, but he also told you that the entire suburb had been completely ruined for 9 months, which is also horseshit. Any member of the DHPD can tell you we've barricaded buildings and started up sieges in the Hills many times since the Dead laid waste to the suburb, it's just that they don't last long and we've learnt that bailing out before it goes tits up is the smartest tactic there is. When you suddenly changed your mind and said that what you wanted was any evidence of DHPD presence at all (contrary to your previous statement), evidence of exactly that was provided to you just over 12 hours later. Here's another favourite quote:

"Given that the Dead say you arent there, and Wan Yao and myself as independant observers have now have examined the suburb to find that this is actually the case, the concensus is that you are not in the suburb and should not be listed as such until you have a significant foothold due to the nature of the suburb."

Again, you were wrong. AFAIK survivor groups are not required to maintain a 'significant foothold' in a suburb to have their template listed on the suburb. If that were the case, then FUACK would not be listed in Dakerstown. They're a survivor group, they're often dead, but they persevere in trying to retake Dakerstown just as we persist in Dunell Hills (my DHPD character spent some time working with them, so this is first hand knowledge). What the hell would you know? Hell - you just admitted I'm stupid for thinking a sysop or beaurecrat knows who's right and wrong yet you instantly judged who was right and who was wrong going on your own personal knowledge/opinion. That's fair enough and its your prerogative as a member of this (supposedly :P) democratic wiki. The problem is, you didn't wait to see if we could persuade you otherwise, you took the role of a participant in the debate and then backed your opinion using your moderator powers. You told us you were going to lock the page, with us off of it, because we weren't trying to argue our case. You admitted we had a case to argue, but basically told us that as far as you were concerned we were wrong and the onus was on us to prove otherwise, and until then you were going to carry on thinking we were wrong. It probably never even entered your head that you might be wrong, and that's not a healthy attitude for someone with authority. Next time, just give us a bit more time to actually put an argument together.

Apologies for the hideous wall of text, I'm still trying to figure out how to make things look shiny on the wiki. If someone wants to move this chunk somewhere else feel free, I don't think it has much bearing on the case. Ezekiel UK 20:11, 5 July 2008 (BST)

I think what he's saying in a round-about way; and this was my initial point, was that it is wrong and an abuse of power to proclaim yourself judge, jury, and executioner of a matter before parties can weigh in and especially when standard policies contradict your actions. Decisions of that nature must be made carefully and logically without emotion or bias; ergo, if you feel you have bias... have someone else without that bias intervene for you; Do not be a cowboy. Also, If a group pledges themselves active in an area and their group has been listed on that area's page for the better part of two years. Unless that group has disbanded, I would surmise that it is highly unlikely that the word of that groups advesary is true when they claim that the group has abandoned fighting in that area. If things were different and it was The Dead who were claimed inactive there, would you be so quick to come against them so brazenly and without regard for proper protocol? I know for a fact you would not... --Marty Banks (aka. Mundane) <DHPD> 07:13, 6 July 2008 (BST)

Marty, you're a fucking [hypocrite].

MartyBanks said:

Regardless of whether it is against a 'rule in the books' of the wiki... Please do something man...

LoL. -- LABIA on the INTERNET ^{Dunell Hills Corpseman} #24 - |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| ^TMG 07:46, 6 July 2008 (BST)

Not only does that not have anything to do with this issue, that was dealing with the mockery you've all made of me here... Which I might add is extremely inappropriate and is good cause for me to complain and request assistance... Thank you for bringing it up though... because I'm sure everyone on the wiki would like to see the one where I put a gun to my head and blow a hole through my skull... oh the laugh value on that one is huge... but yet again... you seem to bring up matters that nothing to do with this issue... Please stay focused if you could and save the mockery for ingame chat... --Marty Banks (aka. Mundane) <DHPD> 10:17, 6 July 2008 (BST)

In the quote above, you ask for help "regardless of whether it is against a 'rule in the books' of the wiki" and now you are complaining about a so called "abuse of power". You are either deliberately obtuse or an idiot, I can't decide which one. -- LABIA on the INTERNET ^{Dunell Hills Corpseman} #24 - |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| ^TMG 21:36, 6 July 2008 (BST)

1) I am a HUGE Idiot... ask anyone...

2) That situation has no bearing on this issue as the circumstances are vastly different...

3) Your attempt at changing the subject so people forget about issue that is at hand now will not work; They are smarter than that...

PS: I'm impressed at your amazing ability to take people out of context, you're worse than cable news...

Grim if I could address your issue with the survivor bias on the wiki; Yes there is. I concur with that assesment; however I would like to point out that it would be extremely strange if the 'website' for the city and buildings and suburbs of Malton (that were according to common sense established by humans prior to the outbreak of a zombie apocalypse) were written as they were being run by the undead. It would be stranger still if at the same time that these zombies were killing, ransacking, and eating human flesh had found time to update their former community's webpages. So I agree entirely, because of that simple fact the wiki started with a huge survivor bias; I think it wrong to make other players 'second class citizens' just because they choose to roleplay as the undead; Old habits die hard though, and change takes time. I agree but I ask that you understand why there is a survivor bias on the wiki as a whole and I hope that in the future more zombie players are willing to contribute to the wiki to help balance its bias and interact with the survivor players, that way we can all have fun killing zeds/eating brains together.

--Marty Banks (aka. Mundane) <DHPD> 21:57, 6 July 2008 (BST)

My attempts to harass you are not working! I think I'm in Love with you, a/s/l? -- LABIA on the INTERNET ^{Dunell Hills Corpseman} #24 - |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| ^TMG 00:16, 7 July 2008 (BST)

13/f/cali --brb, church ^{DORIS CGR U!} 04:31, 7 July 2008 (BST)

26/f/China ^^-- LABIA on the INTERNET ^{Dunell Hills Corpseman} #24 - |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| ^TMG 17:23, 7 July 2008 (BST)

39/f/Tibet :P --/~Rakuen~\^Talk I Still Love Grim 02:14, 8 July 2008 (BST)

Comming over to Tibet to oppress you! -- LABIA on the INTERNET ^{Dunell Hills Corpseman} #24 - |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| ^TMG 21:17, 9 July 2008 (BST)

BAAAW!!! --/~Rakuen~\^Talk I Still Love Grim 19:04, 11 July 2008 (BST)

I say you get this topic back, well, on topic with the dicussion at hand. This section is bad enough to scroll to look for misconduct/not misconduct votes with all the tl;dr posts. --High Gen. Grue Talk 05:23, 10 July 2008 (BST)

HALF TIME And with discussion well and truly heating up with both sides gaining a few points the score stands thus: 2 Misconduct, 4 Not Misconduct and 1 abstention. Please stick all further stuff under this header as it's a pain in the ass scrolling through the whole lot. -- Cheese 19:12, 11 July 2008 (BST)

I do think however that this case is pretty much closed as 7 out of 15 sysops have ruled. However 2 of them are Kevan's accounts (that's 13), 1 is Grim (the defendant) (that would be 12), 2 haven't edited in more than a month (that would be 10) and would just leave Daranz, Zombie and Vantar to rule. So 7 out of 10 sysops have ruled. Give it another day or two to wrap up any further discussion and to see if those three rule. -- Cheese 19:18, 11 July 2008 (BST)

Ruling After about two weeks of discussion, flaming and general wandering off-topic, the decision has been reached that Grim is not guilty of Misconduct. Case Closed -- Cheese 11:27, 13 July 2008 (BST)

Yay, reason triumphs. --The Grimch ^{U! E!} 11:32, 13 July 2008 (BST)

12 May 2008

I have been a member of the Urban Dead wiki for more than two years now. Virtually since I arrived, I have noticed that Grim is incredibly hotheaded and completely ignores the "assume Good Faith" guidelines when it comes to newbie mistakes as I learned pretty early on. I present Exhibit A from way back in May '06, where I was reprimanded for accidentally breaking the suggestions page. Rather than accepting the views of the other sysops, Grim decided to repeatedly argue his point ad naseum until it fell to pieces.
Grim has repeatedly jumped the gun on VB cases, especially on more controversial ones where it would have been much more appropriate to get a majority verdict. I present Exhibit B in which he immediately jumps to a warning each for Hagnat and Karek. Since this was previously a Misconduct case in which there was a great deal of weight to each side of the argument, the best idea would have been to offer his opinions and then wait until a majority decision had been reached. [1] and [2]. As you can see, no hanging around to think. Just plain hotheadedness. Which in my opinion, is not a good quality in a sysop.
The next part of my case is this: 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. Grim abuses this rule to the point of sheer and utter disbelief. He is rude, argumentative and intimidating. He continually undermines his fellow sysops in a way that does not benefit the community, in fact quite the opposite. In this case Grim decides that he knows best and decides that it would be a good idea to give his opinion that two of his fellow sysops are useless at ruling on VB cases. I quote directly from the case:

Both Conna and AHLG are extremely inept when it comes to A/VB, and this mess just highlights thier ineptitude.

Follow this with his comment about AHLG on this misconduct page about 43 hours ago:

How about instead of speculating on my motivations and thereby slandering me, you examine the facts and came up with the right answer?

Once again, Grim shows no respect for the opinions of his fellow sysops and uses bulling in order to "prove" that his view point is the correct one. And finally, Grim decided that not even the 'Crats can have a different opinion from him:

That said, im growing used to you letting sysops off for pretty much anything up to murder, so this turn didnt suprise me in the slightest.

This is a complete and utter disregard for the opinions and thoughts of others. He uses his sysop status to attempt to get his own way, boss people around and just generally rule from up high. I do not believe that I am the only person who thinks this as there are quite a few other users who have got on the wrong side of Grim. A sysop is meant to be impartial and approachable by all members of the community, new and old. I think it's time that he learned this. After two years, you would think he'd have done so by now. I apologise for any bad spelling and/or grammar and/or babbling. It's just after midnight and I need sleep for school in the morning. I'll answer questions etc when I get home. -- Cheese 00:13, 12 May 2008 (BST)

Lessee.

1. First example was a no humourous suggestions violation of yours. Accidental breakage? No. It was you breaking the rules, and im allowed to argue my case if i so desire (I was right there, too. That kind of case has been treated inconsistently from the start). That said, theres nothing there bullying or attempting to use my status as a sysop to force anything to happen.
2. Second case, theres no requirement that we wait for others to deal with any vandalism cases. I ruled, as is my job. You dont like it? Well, tough, given your involvement in an identical active case you dont have a say in it. Thats not forcing my will, that is also doing my job. When a user is warned, warnings are logged. Failure to do so is abandoning your reposibility. I did think long and hard about the case when it was being done on misconduct. Why should i have a fresh look at it when id already spent an hour on it there? There is no reason that makes sense. My reasoning was explained on the misconduct page. It was not hot headedness, as you assert (And you know it wasnt, because you read and commented on that misconduct case too).
3. Third case he brought, the sole extend of my contributions there are as follows:

Grim s said:

Vandalism - As boxy. Impersonation is not subject to good faith/bad faith judgements and never has been. If a person wants to sign their post, so long as they arent pretending to be someone else or breaking the wiki, its their own business. No one has the right to change that. Both Conna and AHLG are extremely inept when it comes to A/VB, and this mess just highlights thier ineptitude. Blame karek for calling me back for this one. --The Grimch U! E! WAT! 04:32, 18 March 2008 (UTC) Oh, and discussion moved to talk. --The Grimch U! E! WAT! 04:36, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

I am allowed to make comments about other users. Other users are allowed to make comments about me. The fact that Conn and AHLG were overuled on that case pretty much demonstrates that i was right in calling their capacities into question, and a reasonable person would see this as the case if they examined those users posting histories.

There is no civility policy on this wiki, never has been. Excessive bullying requires demonstrable intimidation, prolonged continual harrassment of a user or group (Disagreements is not such). Using the sysop thing as a badge of authority is for interactions between sysops and non sysops. "We do it my way because i am a sysop and you arent" kind of thing. I cheerfully admit to being abrasive, i gleefully accept that i am blunt almost to the point of rudeness. These things do not make me a bully, nor does the fact that i have run ins with the same group of people usually mean im tracking them down to persecute them. At best for you it makes mutually antagonistic enemies of me and some other people on this wiki, but thats not misconduct, it would be if i let such a factor get in the way of my doing my job, but it doesnt because i dont let it. Do i find one person and hound them from page to page to page to page to page hurling abuse at them? No. Do i threaten other users with my sysop authority? No. I call things as i see them, and i simply refuse to sugarcoat anything i say to soften the blow of the truth upon your oh so sensitive feelings.

As for your second comment, all AHLG did was question my motivations for bringing the case, that is slander, and it is also irrelevant. I asked him to do his job instead of questioning motivations behond a case. Did he? No, he threw a tantrum and ran off to have a sook.

I am not required to respect the other sysops, in fact i respect a grand total of one of them. The rest of you are, at best, a bunch of incompetants and at worst an insular ruling clique (And i have every reason to believe that both are true). I have seen rules bent at twisted in ways that boggle the mind by many of the sysops here in order to let another off the hook or crucify another user they dont like (I really liked the time Vantar automatically assumed bad faith on me in December, and it took over ten hours of sustained argument in IRC to even get that assumption back, and even then he didnt reverse his decision).

Anyhow, Cheeseman, none of what you have there shows me using my status as a sysop to force my will on other people. At best you have shown i can argue strongly and passionately for positions i support, and that im not the kindest person in the world. Bravo. You have also shown that i used my right to say what i like to comment on how i feel the wiki is being run. Indeed, you seem to focus on that a lot more than anything of actual substance. Are you, perchance, trying to get them annoyed with me to the point where they ignore the rules and say misconduct, just because i dont like them and have said so? I have never attempted to take over, i have never attempted to kick them out, i have used my voice to oppose them, but my disagreeing with them, no matter how strongly, doesnt mean i an using it asw a badge of authority to force my way, because, lets be honest here, one vote cant beat many.

Actually, misconducting me here would pretty much set the precident that any sysop can be misconducted for dissenting . That would be fun.

So Cheeseman, once again you have completely failed to present anything of substancve whatsoever, what a suprise, though your appealing to the ego's of the other sysops might produce some fruit, but most definately not based on anything illegal on my part. --The Grimch ^{U! E! WAT!} 00:45, 12 May 2008 (BST)

Actually, after re-examining this, it seems that you seem to be having some personal conflict with me. Perhaps Arbitration would have been a better place for you to have taken this? --The Grimch ^{U! E! WAT!} 00:53, 12 May 2008 (BST)

It's not murder, so I'll let him off -- boxy ^{talk • i} 10:33 12 May 2008 (BST)

Oh I don't know... does character assassination count? --Honestmistake 17:49, 12 May 2008 (BST)

Thats (mostly) intended to be humorous by the way! --Honestmistake 17:50, 12 May 2008 (BST)

After carefully reading this, it has exceedingly clear that there is a major problem going on here, and it is located directly between Krazy Monkey's ears where it is beyond the scope of this administration's abilities to fix. --#-0 - kid sinister ^TMG 19:08, 12 May 2008 (BST)

4 January 2008

Grim has been using his moderator powers to unfairly remove my suggestions. I asked him nicely about the issue without any progress, you can probably fill yourself in on most of it by reading the discussion on his talk page. What I would like is Grim to not be able to use any mod powers in regards to suggestions I post. --Jon Pyre 17:17, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not really sure how to handle this one. It's not against the rules, so I'm really not sure if it can be considered an abuse of power, there is certainly no precedent for it. What does everyone else think?--The General ^{T Sys U! P! F!} 20:23, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't dispute Grim's ability to remove suggestion, however the standards for doing so are not that vague. I think it is pretty clear that Grim's arguments don't hold up, and cross into an abuse of power. I think asking that Grim recuse himself is not an unreasonable request. --Jon Pyre 20:35, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree that Grim really shouldn't spaminate every suggestion possible when some of them really didn't deserve it, but I'm not sure that it counts as abuse of power when it is within letter (if not the spirit) of the law. I'd like to see what everyone else says (The consensus on the talk page seems to be in favour of Grim, though).--The General ^{T Sys U! P! F!} 21:40, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I'd be going for not misconduct, although I think sysops spammination should be reserved for the totally ridiculous (shotguns being buffed to do 50HP damage, or the like), it is within the rules, and telling grim to leave your suggestions alone, but be free to spamminate others isn't going to happen -- boxy ^{talk • i} 00:29 5 January 2008 (BST)

Fucking hell. Take your whining somewhere else Jon Pyre. As i have said elsewhere, i do it to everyone. Not just you. You are the only person to complain. If you want it to stop happening, dont take me to misconduct. Go to the suggestions page and have the rules changed. Of course it looks like im going out to get you if you just look at statistics, because everyone assumes that everyone makes an equal amount of suggestions in a periord of time, and that they are all of equal quality, as opposed to you pooping out a retarded idea every day. You have a much higher rate of suggestions than anyone else has ever had on this wiki, and almost all of them are crap. Its stands to reason that they are going to get spammed into oblivion in larger numbers than anyone elses, if only because you post suggestions ten to twenty times more frequently than the average suggester.
Lets face it. What i did was not against the spirit nor letter of the sysop spamination rule. If you do not like it, change the rule. This case has no foundation in fact or law. --The Grimch ^{U! E! WAT!} 00:40, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

You don't do it to everyone because except for my suggestions your spam vote has not been "ridiculous, take a vacation." On your talk page you say that part of your reason for spamming my suggestions is that you don't like that I often make one a day, meaning on some level your spam vote is against me, and not my suggestions. You tried to do something similar to Mr. A a while ago with an arbitration case to ban him from the suggestions page for a month because his suggestions were "shitty." It was decided that bad suggestions don't justify banning someone from the suggestions page, something your use of the mod spam vote is essentially doing to me (not that I'm admitting to making bad suggestions). If you can accomplish the same kind of ban with moderator privileges as opposed to a wacky arbitration case I don't see how that makes it justified, when it isn't if you're just a mortal. The suggestions page is not the Louvre, not everything in there has to be a flawless masterpiece. It is a method of developing ideas and seeing what the community supports or opposes. Even a suggestion that is losing gives Kevan an idea of what not to put in the game. My suggestions follow the Dos and Donts, are in the correct format, and are submitted on a time schedule in accordance with the rules. If once a day is too much then you can propose the rules be changed to have suggestions once a week, or month, or however sparse you would like the suggestions page to be. At the end of the day you're using your moderator powers to make suggestions you personally don't like, by a voter you personally don't like, to leave the suggestions page faster than letting their voting process go out. Whether that violates the spirit and not the letter I think that still justifies these proceedings, and I believe it violates the letter as well. Even if your intent is pure, which I'm sure it is, this page should be a way for the community to try to change the actions of wiki officials, both illegal and legal. The very fact that your motivation can be called into question should be reason for you to recuse yourself. --Jon Pyre 04:36, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

2 suggestions is hardly suppressing someone, much less you who posts more suggestions in a week than the average user does in two months.--Karek^maps?! 04:58, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

This is not new, it stretches back years (And I would point out that I have more suggestions in game as well so clearly I hit the mark often enough that I shouldn't be driven off the suggestions page as Grim has asked me). The frequency or quality of my suggestions also does not justify use of mod powers in this way. Some voters use spam votes as a strong kill. Grim uses his mod spam as a super strong kill. If there was an additional level of enforcement he could sic on me, like banning me for a month, I'm sure he'd go to that too as a super duper strong kill. I'm not going to argue general misuse of the spam vote here, but most voters don't have anything above a strong kill spam to use on suggestions they dislike. Grim does, and he shouldn't be using his powers in that fashion.--Jon Pyre 05:03, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Hey John calm down I'll buy you a whine-iken and some french cries. If all else fails I can call a WAAAAAAA-mbulance. Omega 05:10, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Your witty barb has cut my argument in two. I think I'm justified in being taken seriously here. I wrote the rule Grim used to remove my suggestion, so I think I'm in a position to argue what is and is not abuse of it. If you're going to post here be productive. --Jon Pyre 05:15, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

If you're going to post on the suggestions page be productive XD Omega 05:17, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Feel free to check out my user page for what I've contributed to the game. But what I've submitted, or how good a suggestor I am, or how thick or thin a skin I have, is not what is being discussed here it'd be better not the clutter this page with random insults and internet cliches.--Jon Pyre 05:20, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

This is nothing but you bitching and moaning because the rule you wrote is biting you in the arse, and the person doing it is someone you personally dislike. If it had been Vantar doing the removals, i dont see how you would be complaining. if it had been boxy, same thing. Karlsbad, no case. But its me. So i must obviously be nasty and bullying to you because im simply using an ability on the suggestions page to remove spam suggestions on your suggestions that i use on everyones suggestions equally. But no, it is your contrivance that because i do it to everyone equally, that i must be bullying you specifically in a sysop manner. What i have been doing is legal. I havent threatened you in any way, shape or form. I have merely gone around doing my fucking job, and you have had the temerity to come here and then accuse me of doing all sorts of insane bullying things without, i might add, a shred of proof to back yourself up. This is whining, pure and simple. Its a waste of everyones time. I ask for a ruling to be made and the case thrown out so we can get on with our lives. I have work i need to do thats been put on hold because of jon Pyres moaning bitchfest. --The Grimch ^{U! E! WAT!} 05:53, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

In response to your last line, I could say the same thing regarding suggestions I would like to work on. Your job as moderator is to keep the suggestions page working, not preventing suggestions you don't like from remaining around. The fact that it is not Vantar and Boxy and Karlsbad and others removing my suggestions but solely you I think supports my argument. Misconduct is not for extreme cases of illegal behavior but a record of bad judgments. I'm not trying to get a ruling that you're a bad mod, because you do a lot of good work, but on this issue I think you should let all those other mods you listed handle things, if in fact this situation ever required a mod to step in at all.--Jon Pyre 06:17, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

There are no such things as moderators on this wiki. There are sysops. Read the policy. And given it takes you all of twenty seconds to come up with a suggestion, and the fact that you are, mercifully, restricted to one suggestion a day means that you arent missing much. Unlike you, im actually contributing to this wiki, and it takes me an hour or so to work through each page im expanding, something i cant do if im constantly forced to check up on the state of this case. As for your latest addition: Given the fact that i am the only sysop doing it, and im doing it to everyones suggestions, kind of beats your argument over the head, strips its naked, drops it in a ditch outside of town, then shoots it in the head. And stop edit conflicting. Write out what you want to say, THEN post it. Think things through for once in your life. --The Grimch ^{U! E! WAT!} 06:25, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Sysop, mods, whatever you call it, your use of abilities should be to encourage suggestions, not stop them. You can't argue the page is overcrowded now. It's a ghost town. One suggestion a day total? Less sometimes. --Jon Pyre 06:36, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

The suggestions system exists to vet suggestions to see if they should go to peer reviewed, or if they should be rejected. It is there for the removal of bad suggestions just as much as it is for the passing of good ones. I am serving in that respect, well within the rules of the page. You are just whining because its not working out they way you would like. --The Grimch ^{U! E! WAT!} 06:38, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Even losing suggestions are designed to remain for two weeks and allow voters to see kill votes. That way voters learn what not to suggest, and Kevan can see which concepts the community opposes. Spam votes eliminate ridiculous stuff like permanent kills and rocket launchers. You are not serving the purpose of the rules. Even if you are not breaking the letter of the law the spirit is not being served. As I said, I'm not seeking punishment for a crime but a change in future conduct. Even if you are following the law to the letter the misconduct page is appropriate. --Jon Pyre 06:45, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Not Misconduct If Grim had been removing suggestions that should not have been removed under the suggestion page rules then you would have a case but that is not what is happening here. Grim removed suggestions that should have been removed in accordance with the page rules, that is his job, he did it. Your issue is with the rule, not the person following that rule- Vantar 07:01, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Ok, then the Suggestions page belongs to Grim. I think I'll take a leave of absence and give him the full monthly ban (or more) that would make his heart sing. I don't see the purpose of using the suggestions page when there is such a negative attitude against brainstorming and suggestors. This also sets a bad precedent for the wiki in that following the letter of the law excuses anything done under it. There is a lot of trouble that can be caused within the rules, and if that ever happens now there is no recourse. Enjoy shepherding the five monthly suggestions Grim. --Jon Pyre 15:23, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I didnt break either the letter or spirit of that law. You are the only person arguing that. This is just you whining. Feel free to try the arb case you started. I mean, its still open. --The Grimch ^{U! E! WAT!} 15:27, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Jon... most people use the Talk page for brainstorming before submission, it would have avoided both of these recent cases! --Honestmistake 15:28, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Dont waste your bandwidth. He has been told all that before and during this case. He is a classic Ferrous Cranus. Nothing can penetrate the shell of ignorance he shrouds himself in. --The Grimch ^{U! E! WAT!} 15:32, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Shut the fuck up Grim -- boxy ^{talk • i} 15:37 5 January 2008 (BST)

Y'know, i dont think i will. I merely pointed out that Jon pyre has been told exactly what Honestmistake told him, and he has been told it dozens of times. Most recently before this was on the talk page by myself. He doesnt get it. He wont consider new ideas (Pretty hypocritical for someone who wants us to accept his ideas). I have correctly labelled him as a FC so as to help others avoid wasting their time trying to convince him of anything. Obviously im not allowed to do that though. I mean, it annoys you. How about if something annoys you, you visit the relevant talk page instead of posting a stupid, unhelpful "Shut the hell up". I can guarantee you at the very least ill consider your position. --The Grimch ^{U! E! WAT!} 15:48, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

So you make out you're doing a public service by telling others not to bother responding to him... but continually taunt him, suggesting that he continue this on arbies... you idiot. If he's not worth responding to... don't -- boxy ^{talk • i} 15:58 5 January 2008 (BST)

1: Once isnt continually. 2: My responses are no longer directed at him, but the crowd. I know its impossible for him to see the error of his ways. The only thing that can be done is to show how he is wrong so others dont start believing him because no one has responded to shoot it down. Too many people do this for my liking. --The Grimch ^{U! E! WAT!} 16:05, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

[insert rebuttal here] -- boxy ^{talk • i} 16:14 5 January 2008 (BST)

[insert counter rebuttal here]--The Grimch ^{U! E! WAT!} 16:17, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

[insert facepalm here] --Cyberbob ^{DORIS CGR U!} 16:20, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

[insert philosophical comment here] --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 16:46, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

[insert coins here]--'BP^Tmz 19:42, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

*Points to mouth* [Insert Pie here]-- dǝǝɥs oʇ ɯɐds: sʎɐʍ1ɐ! 20:04, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

*points to all the children above* [Insert Warning for SPAMMING Admin Pages!]]--Honestmistake 20:44, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

a) Backseat modding hurr

b) Irony in calling others children --Cyberbob ^{DORIS CGR U!} 20:46, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Now that the case has been decided how about we all just quit the misconduct page? It's not going to get us anywhere.--The General ^{T Sys U! P! F!} 21:00, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

*Points at the general and shouts "ya boo sucks"*--Honestmistake 04:45, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

*points at Bob and pulls funny faces before noting that he is twice his age and therefore allowed to be bitter and horrid ;)*--Honestmistake 04:45, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

3 December 2007

For continuing to edit the wiki despite being banned. Actually, it was not an edit per se, but he banned a vandal while there were other sysops that could handle it as easily (log). My greatest concern is not the damage the block itself could make to the wiki (in fact, it's probably the opposite) but the total lack of care for this wiki processes and rules. He's, yet again, arrogantly mocking the wiki in order to prove a point. His action was an obvious abuse of his Sysop status despite any intentions he may had. --Matthew Fahrenheit ^YRC☺T☺+1 13:35, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Misconduct - for using sysops powers while under a legitimate ban. Punishment, he gets to serve the 24hr ban, that he avoided by banning this obvious vandal, again -- boxy • talk • 14:35 3 December 2007 (BST)

I'm not trying to get a greater punishment here, as I'm happy that Grim didn't go unpunished for his abuse as he probably expected, but isn't ban evasion punished with another vandal escalation as well? Grim pushed that point to the limit on the Izumi case, so I think it may be fair that it bites his ass for once. It would be a warning for Grim, not another ban. --Matthew Fahrenheit ^YRC☺T☺+1 15:03, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

wait wait wait what ? You kidding right ? Grim banned a vandal while he was still serving ban time and it's misconduct ? You guys are nuts! There is no arrogance here, is he doing his job! There is nowhere in the guidelines that says a sysop can't do his job while serving ban-time, even if they are serving ban for misconduct (which was not grim case, but is now). --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{[cloned] [mod]} 15:31, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Um, I'm also not arguing for our Grimch to serve a longer ban, I honestly don't care if he does or not, but what's a "ban" mean if it means you can still do things on the wiki? Not trying to wiki-lawyer, but seriously, I think the concept of ban is being abused here if you can still do wiki things, you're not really banned from the wiki, eh? --Barbecue Barbecue 16:29, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

It's not like he was editing the wiki or something like that. He was protecting us from a vandal who was vandalizing a page. Who cares if there was other sysops around, in cases such as these those who spot the vandal should ban him on sight. Grim's was doing his job as wiki-janitor and banned a vandal. No misconduct, no nothing. End of story. --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{[cloned] [mod]} 16:42, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

as long as we redefine "ban" to mean "can still do good things on the wiki," I'm all set. --Barbecue Barbecue 16:45, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

see talk page for my comments ;) --Honestmistake 16:47, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Y'know, 48 hours is a long time to ban someone for who hasn't actualy commited a single bad faith edit. He's commented on a policy that directly affected not only him, but the day to day running of the wiki and banned someone who was actively vandalising the wiki. I was under the impression that any kind of ban was to be a last resort, only taken agaignst a definate vandal to stop them vandalising the wiki. THese current rulings go not only agaignst the spirit of the wiki, but agiangst any kind of common sense. For christ's sake, get a grip and stop misusing your powers as users and sysops. It's doing more damage than good. At the end of the day, Grim is not a vandal, we all know that. He works bloody hard to maintain the wiki and keep it free of people who would realy vandalise it and this is the thanks he gets? Y'know I was actualy thinking of working towards becoming a sysop and, y'know helping out more with sysop stuff, but sod that for a laugth. This shit does nothing but cause more and more stupid drama, and creates an atmosphere of petty bickering and poison-laced barbs at other users. Well donr for dragging the spirit of the wiki through the shit though, you've done more to create a hostile, unfriendly atmosphere than a hundered genuine vandals ever could--Seventythree^Talk 16:51, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

You can't create rules and only apply them selectively, Seventythree - that defeats the whole purpose of the exercise. Whether or not Grim was a "true vandal" is irrelevant - you simply cannot disregard the decision made by the ruling sysops over that case because you don't like it. You want to protest it? Fine, but this is not the place - or the time - to do it. The ruling has been made, and it needs to be abided by. Y'know, objectively? _{I knew there was a reason I didn't bring this case up} --Cyberbob ^{DORIS CGR U!} 16:55, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Spare me the sophistry, please. Grim got screwed over by a dumb rule and a dumber beuocracy. This wiki is way too eager to ban people. Why can't we change the rules, or make an exeption in the case of a particuarly dumb one?--Seventythree^Talk 16:58, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Seventythree, I credit you for your writing (spelling aside), but look up sophistry--it's not what Cyberbob was engaged in--he had/has a legitimate argument. --Barbecue Barbecue 17:07, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Okay as no one is using the talk page i will comment here and wait for it to be moved en-masse. Grims first ban was basically his own fault... he was pushing the rules and got pretty much what Nalikill did! Unlike Nali's latest ban (his own fault but not really vandalism) this one is just plain wrong. By doing this it is arguable that he broke the rules but, frankly, if he had ignored it and we all found out he was watching it happen it would have been clear cut misconduct worthy of a permaban! He has been trusted with the power to remove vandals and not using them in this case would have been negligence! I think we all know that I am far from Grims biggest fan but if even I think this is going too far Grud only knows what those less partisan think!!! --Honestmistake 17:06, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I ruled vandalism in that case and i am start to have doubts if it was really the right call. There is no way conn could rule like that, he kind of steped out of his duties as arbitrator. --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{[cloned] [mod]} 17:02, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

The second you start making exceptions is the second everyone else starts wanting one too. If it's a bad rule, change it. You can't bypass all due process to make a completely subjective call like this so unilaterally. --Cyberbob ^{DORIS CGR U!} 17:04, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

@Hagnat: It's too late now. The rulings (including yours) have been made, and have to be abided by. You had the chance to make that call before the case was closed - it would be a gross abuse of the system if you were to try and reverse it. --Cyberbob ^{DORIS CGR U!} 17:04, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

There has to be the possibility of making exeptions to rules, otherwise the rules themselves are shown up as stupid and undermined. Far better to have an exeption every now and then rather than have a fully, 100% enforced rule that winds up scrapped becasue it did some damage in an area where an exeption should have been made (oh, and I was reffering more to the levels of sophistry previously seen in this case and others before it, not Cybers actual response)--Seventythree^Talk 17:10, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

...You don't need to completely scrap a rule simply because it has a minor flaw or two. What's wrong with a simple revision? Look how often laws in society have to be changed - yet exceptions are still not granted to people, even when they may deserve it. On the other issue - you've gone completely off your rocker if you think throwing charges of sophistry which you admit hasn't taken place in this discussion in my face is going to get you anywhere. --Cyberbob ^{DORIS CGR U!} 17:15, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Fair enougth cyberbob, I apologise. Accusing you of sophistry was out of line. I stand by my point on the other issues though. Personaly I'd like to see this over and done with, it's getting kinda stale.--Seventythree^Talk 17:22, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Apology accepted... I'd love to see this over too, believe it or not. I could've brought this case up myself ages ago - I noticed Grim's indiscretion pretty much as he performed it - but I figured I'd see whether anyone else thought it important enough to. --Cyberbob ^{DORIS CGR U!} 17:25, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

This is where they can be overturned Cyberbob, especially considering that the whole case could essentially make for one lengthy misconduct trial involving all the sysops who decided to ban. Arbitration has never been allowed to interfere with the running of the wiki and it is the Sysops job to make sure that isn't the case when ruling whether an arb violation is vandalism, it's come up before in cases like Nali V. Grim s and been ruled that Arb can be overturned due to intent of the edits. So basically, would you prefer it's addressed here where all the precedent this might set is easily accesible or in 4-5 cases, one for each sysop involved. --Karek^maps?! 17:11, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm not getting into the intent of Grim's edits here, as they have already been ruled vandalism and thus in bad faith. At this point it doesn't matter what anyone thinks - that is how it has been ruled upon. Feel free to take it up on my talk page, if you really feel that strongly about it. --Cyberbob ^{DORIS CGR U!} 17:17, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Hagnat has kindly unbanned me so i can have due process, something which was denied me by Boxys hasty ruling (An hour the case was open, and during that hour i was asleep, my power went out breifly in an ongoing storm and i decided to call it a night). Even so, i shall restrict my comments to this page until such time as the case against me goes away. I was watching recent changes at the time of the incident. My ban wwas due to expire shortly (Couple of hours), and i was looking forward to posting the suggestion i have in limbo on the suggestions talk page. While looking at the page i saw the following things:

1. That a vandal was deleting A/VB and replacing it with a collage of shock images.
2. That the most recent sysop edit was by Karlsbad, and his was an hour and a half previously

Because i couldnt reasonably assume karlsbad was still online, and no other sysops were online, and this person was showing all the classic hallmarks of being a classic persistent vandal, i took steps and did my duty, the duty i asked for a year and a half ago. It was for precisely these cases that i asked for it in the first place, and my position on that issue remains the same now as it was then. Given the vandal was repeating his vandalism, and the fact i couldnt reasonably assume another sysop was online, i made the call, and used the only sysop power apart from checkuser i have that still works when banned (Page deletions and protections are blocked, as is the rollback function).
Did i know up front that this may have been considered by some to be violating my ban? yes i did, and i was fully prepared to accept it if someone was going to be sore enough to try and push a case on it, content to let others do the pushing and pulling, given how sick i am of all this drama. I even remarked as such on IRC. Did i ever think this would be misconduct? No. There is nothing in the guidelines regarding a sysop using his powers while banned to protect the wiki from a vandal when he or she does not have evidence to assume another sysop was online, and i was pretty certain that in particular would have protected me from any vandalism charges. That said, i was more than willing to suffer the consequences.
I made the right call here, and id do it again if i had the chance. To have done any different would have been to show that i am more concerned about my own personal wellbeing than i am about the wiki and would have, in my opinion, been grounds for stripping me of my sysop powers. My job is not to be liked. My job is not to look after only my own interests. My job is to serve and protect this wiki, and thats just what i did. Boxy seems to think im some kind of power mad tyrant, as suggested by his message on my talk page. I am not. I am, as Zaruthustra put it on IRC, a crusty old bastard who cares deeply for the community.

Did i use my sysop abilities? Yes. Did i abuse them? No. I did not even unblock myself, though as history has shown, such an action would have been well within my power. Did i avoid the ban? No. I could easily have removed it at any point prior to this event, and i could easily have removed this one as well to say my piece, but i have not. I merely smacked down a vandal when i could not reasonably or unreasonably assume there was another sysop around to do it and, come what may, id do it again if i had the chance. I made the right call, and the only one a reasonable person could have made with the wikis best interests at heart. --The Grimch ^{U! E! WAT!} 17:11, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

if I may paraphrase myself, which is a paraphrase one of the greatest movies ever, _Kicking and Screaming_, "as long as we redefine 'ban' to mean 'can still do good things on the wiki,' I'm all set. --Barbecue Barbecue 16:45, 3 December 2007 (UTC)" --Barbecue Barbecue 17:25, 3 December 2007 (UTC) (ok, it's a quote, not a paraphrase--and again, I'm not against the Grimch)

Not misconduct - He just banned an active vandal. There was no ban evasion.--Thari ^{TжFedCom is BFI!} 18:42, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Not Misconduct A banned user is only banned from editing. The wiki software will prevent that user from editing pages for a set amount of time. Ban evasion then occurs when that user tries to get around that ban, through the creation of a new account or some other means. Grim used his own account to ban the vandel. Meaning that the wiki software does not consider Grim's ban to extend to block user function. The wiki drew a line that Grim was not allowed to cross and he got as close to it as he could with out crossing it- Vantar 17:27, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

If I ever see a hair split finer in all my days, I'll eat my hat. That was truly a bravura performance. --Cyberbob ^{DORIS CGR U!} 17:46, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

As Cyberbob--until there's a clear policy statement that says a ban is only a ban from editing, and not from doing work on the wiki--I guess then I'm going to be the fool who doesn't understand what "ban" means. --Barbecue Barbecue 18:18, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

The wiki software allows Grim to unban himself too, Vantar. What the wiki software allows doesn't overrule a ban -- boxy • talk • 00:33 4 December 2007 (BST)

Not Misconduct - i believe everybody know my stand in here, only enforcing it for the sake of accountability --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{[cloned] [mod]} 18:54, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Your stand is that banned sysops can still do their job (contribute the the wiki) while serving a ban. That is one rule for regular users, and another for us sysops, Hagnat. If you get yourself banned, then you stop contributing, as simple as that. Grim has often said that we've plenty of sysops, and at the moment, we do seem to be fairly well off. If a sysops gets banned, then the wiki just has to do without them for the duration of the ban. We'll survive, even if there were no sysops around, regular users were still reverting the page in good time. Yes, the vandal banning was obviously the right thing for an active sysops to do. But Grim also had an obligation to respect the legitimate ban handed down to him by the rest of the sysops. And saying "I know I'm banned, but I don't care" in the block log was just the icing on the cake. You're redefining "ban" to mean something different for admin here -- boxy • talk • 00:41 4 December 2007 (BST)

What makes you think i didnt respect it? What i have done is not actually covered in the sysop guidelines. Misconduct is not the place for it, so your ruling of misconduct for it was, to be quite blunt, both vindictive and quite possibly cruel. The guidelines also say nothing about the use of sysop powers while banned, and for cases such as this, the room for good faith in the use of those powers from beyond the grave, as it were, in defense of the wiki should be an exception in any spirit of the rule guidelines. You will notice that after application of a perma, i withdrew and served out the remainder of my ban. That is not, in any way, disrespecting the ban. And i dont see why you must repeat ad nauseam the assertion that it was a legitimate ban, when the bans legitimacy is very much in doubt, though of no relevance whatsoever to this case. If it had been a third warning ban, i would have done the same thing. You have been sucked in by matts incitive rhetoric, all too eager to jump on the whack-a-grim bandwagon that has been rolling through ever since i started moderating my behaviour a few months ago. Anyway, back to topic. I believe there is a word used to describe individuals willing to risk themselves to do the right thing. Cant seem to recall it at the moment. That said, im not about to toss myself to the wolves. --The Grimch ^{U! E! WAT!} 05:11, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Unbanning yourself from a legitimate ban doesn't seem to be covered on the guidelines page either... but Misconduct is indeed where it would be dealt with if it happened, given that it's using sysops only powers. Such an arguement is simple wikilawyering. This is obviously the place to decide this. If I was looking to be vindictive or cruel towards you, wouldn't I have brought this case myself, rather than contacting you hours beforehand. No, I didn't want to deal with this here, but I did consider it wrong even though I would have rather discussed it with you. You decry retoric by others, and then go on about how vindictive, cruel and eager to whack-a-grim I am. Do you even listen to yourself? I've been supportive of you since you got back, but this last week or so you've just gone too far. You would have been swearing at and "soft warning" anyone else that carried on the way you have on the admin pages -- boxy ^{talk • I} 09:39 5 December 2007 (BST)

I take this to mean i am free to go, and will now resume editing the wiki. --The Grimch ^{U! E! WAT!} 19:11, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

So, what does a ban mean? Should a sysops be allowed to ban/unban other users while they are serving a ban? Given that they are prohibited from editing the relevent pages to report their deeds as required under the guidelines, I would argue no, we shouldn't set this precident. Obviously if the wiki was in real danger (attacks aimed to deny service), that could be taken into consideration on a case by case basis as a mitigating circumstance, but that doesn't seem to be what you guys are saying -- boxy ^{talk • I} 09:39 5 December 2007 (BST)

Theres nothing we can do about DDOS attacks. The wiki software allows for bans to be manipulated when banned oneself. Admittedly, such an ability can be misused, however in this case it has not. There is nothing in the guidelines thats ays a sysop cannot ban someone while banned. That is an assumption you and Matt made when you originally speedied this case. The guidelines say that its ok, so long as either the sysop or another user reports the vandal. That was done within minutes of the ban. I believe such actions should, however, only be used as a last resort, and in this case i have demonstrated it was used as such. Had it just been a one hit and vanish vandal as we have had so many times before i would have done nothing. However, i was on at the time he started his run, and he gave the impression of being a vandal set on making more trouble than the usual. Possibly an attempt to be PQNesque. Here are the facts of the case.

1. Such vandals are trolling for a response.
2. There is nothing in the guidelines regarding such an act being committed, either for or against. Arguing that it broke the guidelines is therefore an exercise in futility.
3. My actions were demonstrably made in defense of this wiki against a "threat" against which i was unable to reasonably assume another sysop was present to deal with.

As a result, its pretty safe to say that since there is no guideline regarding the matter i didnt break any guidelines, and my actions have demonstrably been made in an overwhelmingly good faith and an attempt to stop an action by an attacking user, no more no less, though more and less were easily within my power, and are therefore not misconduct. This case should be used as a measuring stick regarding future occurances of the kind for the time being, until policy is amended. Also, your arguing that it broke the guidelines, being unfounded by the guidelines i allegedly broke, is tantamount to feeding the troll. Just let it go here, and if you feel that strongly about it, create a policy regarding it. --The Grimch ^{U! E! WAT!} 11:36, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Not Misconduct - It's so vindictively petty to punish someone for protecting the wiki that I'm surprised we're even having this discussion.--The General ^{T Sys U! P! F!} 12:59, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

OK, looks like I've been well outvoted... so let's make a list. What are sysops allowed to do while banned from the wiki?

• Ban/unban users.
• Promote/demote users.
• Move pages.
• Delete/undelete pages.
• Protect/unprotect pages.

For future reference -- boxy ^{talk • i} 13:28 9 December 2007 (BST)

Ban active vandals. Basically, perform time-sensitive actions which would normally be allowed to perform without reporting first.--The General ^{T Sys U! P! F!} 14:50, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Ban active vandals. This is the only time-sensitive matter a sysops should be allowed to do while banned. Banning a vandal prevents the wiki from the need to restore whatever the vandal ruined. --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{[cloned] [mod]} 15:32, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Ban active vandals (time sensitive) and maybe page protections for some cases.--Seventythree^Talk 15:34, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

What part of "selective application of rules" you people don't get? Never mind. --Midianian|T|T:S|C:RCS| 20:17, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Boxy, the wiki software prevents a banned sysop from using the delete/undelete function, as well as altering protection status and page moves. Ban and checkuser are the only two functions i know of which can be used while banned. Of course, i cannot check the promote/demote one. That said, the banning active vandals is allowed. --The Grimch ^{U! E! WAT!} 20:14, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

If a sysop is blocked and sees some vandalism, even though they may be capable of banning the vandal, they aren't able to report it to V/B, they aren't able to add the banning to Vandal Data, they aren't able to place a notice on the vandal's talk page and if someone disagrees with the decision they aren't able to justify it anywhere. In short, they can't do the task properly.

However, in a clear-cut case of active vandalism, where it's clear that if a user isn't banned straight away they'll continue to vandalise more and more of the wiki, I think all of those problems are out-weighed by the need to ban that vandal in order to protect the wiki. So if the case is clear-cut and non-controversial, and the vandalism is active and ongoing, then I think it's reasonable to allow the sysop to ban a user. --Toejam 07:11, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Flat perma is never added to A/VD simply because if it was, we would have a page about a thousand times longer than we do now. Its for keeping track of warnings and escalations, not for keeping track of which idiot of the week has decided that it would be the coolest thing in the world to vandalise the place, notwithstanding just how easily its all reverted. The only requirement of such a ban is that someone eventually logs it on A/VB, and a sysop can get a friend or, at the very least, a chatting partner on IRC to do that for them. --The Grimch ^{U! E! WAT!} 10:49, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

14 November 2007

Citing Suggestion:20071113_Home_Made_Bombs and Suggestion:20071114_.22_rifles_and_ammunition, the Grimch has repeatedly struck votes of mine that are valid and with a constructive reason (to avoid spamination to give the author a chance to get more and more contsructive input), nothing to do with trolling, which is a clear abuse of his powers as a sysop. He should at the least have the common sense to ask another sysop to do it, as he should realize that he can't keep a cool head when dealing with me, and even if he can it will cause nothing but controversy.  Nalikill  ^{TALK  E!  W!  M!  USAI}  04:48, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Ill just cut and paste my response from the talk page, which i made just after this case was brought up (You didnt even try to resolve the matter as was intended):

You do not vote merely to keep things from being spaminated, especially when you clearly think it should be spam (Your previous vote was clearly a spam vote). You vote based on the merits of the suggestion, and are in this case merely abusing the keep vote to prevent spamination. Vote not restored. Helping newbies is one thing, but please refrain from abusing the system to try and force something to happen that is plainly not going to. If you really want to give constructive feedback, go to his talk page, but dont abuse the system to try and get your way, making it more difficult for the rest of us.

What you are doing is, in a very strict sense, trolling the page. No one is going to give positive feedback for rifle and AOE suggestions, what the fuck were you thinking? All that would have happened is a string of extra votes telling you to piss off. The classic MO of the troll. As i said in my comment on the talk page: If you really want constructive feedback to be left, go to his talk page and leave it. This is a fucking frivolous case and you know it, bringing it this quickly without an attempt to resolve the matter as the rules state is a clear abuse of the system, and at the end of this case im taking you to A/VB for continued abuse of admin pages. --The Grimch ^{U! E! WAT!} 04:55, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

It's just you're the first sysop I've seen whose been enough of an asshole to strike a supposedly 'troll' vote. I've seen much more 'trolling' 'inane' and 'stupid' votes than this; none have ever been struck to my knowledge. If someone can name me two other cases where an inane but signed and justified vote was struck.... then my case will lose a lot of its furor, but I don't think it's ever happened before, and if it has, it's incredibly damn rare. And if this ain't misconduct, vandal banning me for just using the fucking admin pages as I should certainly is. I think I've shown this isn't frivolous; did you ever think, O holy one, that you may at some point be wrong? That I might actually want to honestly contribute? And you're just an obstructing asshole?  Nalikill  ^{TALK  E!  W!  M!  USAI}  04:57, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

The note has only been used once previously, by Librarian Brent against myself, two years ago. It exists and i used it correctly, you instead of trying to resolve them matter as the guidelines dictate, came directly here after posting your defense. Such a case should never have been made, and is a waste of everyones time. --The Grimch ^{U! E! WAT!} 05:00, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I didn't bother because I know you. You'd have reacted just like you did here; you'd have told me to fuck off and I was an asshole and would've taken me to VB anyway if I'd have started this case after talking to you.  Nalikill  ^{TALK  E!  W!  M!  USAI}  05:03, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

If you want me to, and I'm allowed to, I'll withdraw the case, especially if you can point me to where it says I should try to resolve misconduct with a sysop on their talk page.  Nalikill  ^{TALK  E!  W!  M!  USAI}  05:04, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I apologize especially for all the parts I wrote in anger; I want this to go down with a minimum of drama. I'm sorry, Grim, I realize now you were just doing your duty, and I could've resolved all this by just saying "okay, I understand", and voting with a different justification rather than trying to slam my head through a brick wall by saying the wall shouldn't be there. So I'm withdrawing the case, if it's allowed, and if it's allowed, will someone who is permitted to please move this to Grim's archive?  Nalikill  ^{TALK  E!  W!  M!  USAI}  05:16, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

A strong not Not Misconduct on many levels. First off "to avoid spamination to give the author a chance to get more and more contsructive input" is not a constructive reason. The suggestion would live on in the Suggestions category allowing the authors to read why their suggestions were spammed and will give them a chance to read pages like Talk:Suggestions to better understand what to do to improve their idea.
From your talk page I can see that you have been talked to before about your behavior on suggestions so you should have be more careful with you conduct and other uninvolved parties reached the same conclusion as Grim but still you thing you are being treated unfairly. In short this case boils down to you did something dumb Grim called you on it, and was right. - Vantar 05:41, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Nalikill, you cant vote again with a different justification, it circumvents the entire purpose of Note which is to knock out a trollers vote for the duration of the suggestion unless it can be defended. Your new vote was struck as well for that and another reason. --The Grimch ^{U! E! WAT!} 05:23, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Whoops, sorry, I didn't know. In that case, I'll just leave that alone, and from now on, if a vote gets struck, I'll just leave it be. A struck vote ain't that big of a deal. Just repeating myself here, I've withdrawn the case. Sorry, again, Grim.  Nalikill  ^{TALK  E!  W!  M!  USAI}  05:23, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

As boxy said, "you're just making shit up". The note rule reads: "Note is used by System Operators to invalidate trolling-based votes. Only Sysops may remove troll-based votes and they do so with a strikeout ... The voter may contest the strikeout with the Sysop that struck their vote out on the discussion page. Only a System Operator may remove a strikeout." There's nothing there about the voter not being allowed to vote differently. There's also nothing there that actually defines what a "trolling-based vote" is. Also, there's strong precedence for votes with no justification, or highly questionable justification being allowed. In fact, only recently, Grim, you supported another sysop in an arguably unjustified vote. It seems perfectly clear here that it's "Grim's Law" on the suggestions page at the moment, which means you don't have to justify your vote if he agrees with you, but you have to justify it correctly if he disagrees with you. Grim - you're wiki-lawyering and you're way out of line. --Funt Solo ^QT 09:19, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

The no new vote is strongly implied. If only a sysop can remove strikeout, why should a person be able to effectively remove strikeout by voting again? If they want to change the content of their vote, they can discuss it with the sysop on the talk page, and odds are, once its acceptable, the vote will be changed and unstruck. The Nubis Nope vote was a completely different case, in which Nubis simply opted for his reason to be Nope, there isnt any real need for long drawn out justifications. A lot of people have said "Just no" in response to some pretty outrageous ideas in the past, and the suggestion in question was no different. What happened in this case was Nalikill changed his vote from spam to keep simply to attempt to avoid the suggestion from being spaminated, which is abusing the system. He did this in both suggestions in which i used note to invalidate his vote. It should be noted that i havent got any form of grudge against him, though i do find him annoying. I simply did one when i stumbled across it, and then karek pointed the second out to me on IRC. Please refrain from making baseless assertions in future. Might i suggest asking leadup questions before you go making baseless accusations about things like "Grim's law" or "The Boxy Rule" or "The Vista Circumstance" or the "Zaruthustra Conspiracy" or even the "Vantar Proclaimation". --The Grimch ^{U! E! WAT!} 09:35, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

The power is to remove troll votes, not voters. Plenty of people vote keep or kill because they don't agree with spammination. It is a valid voting tactic, IMO. Nali telling everyone that he was simply voting keep to invalidate spam votes was trolling, and was justifiably struck out. I see no rule, or even implication in the rules, disallowing him a proper vote -- boxy • talk • 09:40 14 November 2007 (BST)

This probably isnt the place to have this discussion. Could we move this to the category:suggestions talk page, please? --The Grimch ^{U! E! WAT!} 09:44, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Sure, you first -- boxy • talk • 09:46 14 November 2007 (BST)

Discussion continued here -- boxy • talk • 10:09 14 November 2007 (BST)

Just want to say that the bomb suggestion did get a lot of positive feedback on the talk page and if left up would probably have recieved some on the voting page too. It was crap and took no notice of the bad feedback it recieved so was destined to die regardless but I do think it would have got enough support that it would survive Spamination. Ignoring the rights and wrongs here this whole thing is a good illustration of everything thats wrong with the SPAM vote, even when used with justification its still a drama magnet! --Honestmistake 09:33, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

27 October 2007

Banned my friend Nalikill for voting and trying to get his page undeleted under perfectly legitimate means. He did not shit up the admin pages, nor did he do anything frivolous or insincere on there, and the recreation of the page was prior to deletion, and if you look at A/D#Template:Template, you'll see he changed his vote after moving it to a user subpage, with the understanding it would be appropriate to have it there- meaning he did NOT recreate a file that was deleted, he created the page before it was deleted. Piratejames 02:12, 27 October 2007 (BST)

I was about to ban nalikill for being an arse in the sd page... i understand why grim did this. I'd say it wasnt misconduct, but i guess i have a conflict of interest in this case to rule on it. And hosting a page that is about to be deleted by popular vote is still a deletion workaround. --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{[cloned] [mod]} 02:18, 27 October 2007 (BST)

I shall list this in numbered format to make it easier on the eyes.

1. If he wanted the page undeleted in the first place, he should have used the A/U (It would have been turned down as it was nothing but garbage)
2. His recreation was nothing but a continuation of his confrontation with the sysops of this wiki. He didnt need that page to spam with. He could have just gone and used his home away from home, the Assylum, or whatever its called. He recreated something to dick with us, something he has been warned four times not to do, twice with bans attached.
3. The page recreation could not be, in any way, considered good faith.
4. He shat up the proceedings by keep voting a deletion request to have a copyrighted image removed from the wiki whos author had previously requested its removal. Such deletions are not subject to votes, regardless of how much Nalikill wants to dick with the system. This was behaviour that has gotten him banned before.
5. Bitched and whined when his page was Speedydeleted under criterion 6, as it had passed a previous vote and was speedied before, and he bypassed it. There are precidennts regarding deletion workarounds that if they are made in bad faith its the same as vandalsim.

Suffice it to say, Nalikill has refused to stop dicking with the administration pages, something he refuses to do. He was perpetuating his foolish one sided fued against a gaggle of volenteers, far more openly and trollishly this time than he has ever done so before. I merely shot him down, within the precedents of this case and the rules as well. Each section alone probably wont seem to merit a ban, but as before, everything taken together as a whole more than earns it. The only way this could have been actual misconduct is if i permad him instead of week banned him. --The Grimch ^{U! E! WAT!} 02:25, 27 October 2007 (BST)

Everyone is making Nalikill sound like the page was previously stuffed into a bag against his will; he transferred the template into a user subpage and changed his vote on the speedydeletions page in order to avoid a confrontation with the sysops. Piratejames 02:49, 27 October 2007 (BST)

Avoid confrontation? He has done nothing but seek it almost constantly. Anyway, i have to go out now and i wont be able to use the wiki for several hours, and i would very much like to make further contributions to this case before the final ruling. --The Grimch ^{U! E! WAT!} 02:50, 27 October 2007 (BST)

what was under vote was not the page, but it's content. I could really well create a page name Salami Mama. It's useless now, but only with content we can decide if it's going to be kept or deleted. If i stuff it with spam and crap, it will be deleted. If i move the spam and crap somewhere else, somewhere else will be deleted! --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{[cloned] [mod]} 02:53, 27 October 2007 (BST)

I believe that Nalikill was within his rights on A/U but his actions on A/SD may have been enough grounds for A/VB. The precedents set about when a sysop can ban a user with first posting on this A/VB lead me to believe Grim may have been in line with the guidelines. (5 edit conflicts just to say this) - Vantar 02:55, 27 October 2007 (BST)

The below has been cross posted from the A/VB talk page

Ok, lets get this right out. Even if the page creation doesnt matter, and we ignore his conduct on A/U and A/SD regarding it, the fact is he futzed with the admin pages again, this time shitting on the speedydelete page regarding the removal of content, content which the copyright holder has requested be removed. There are no votes about such things when the author comes to say he/she wants it gone, it is just done. His insistence that it go to A/D for two weeks was a clear abuse of the pages keep rule and an attempt to stir up drama, and flew in the face of no fewer than four previous warnings (Two of which were bans as well, leaving no doubt how serious we were about these). On that basis alone he warranted the ban. The rest is like sauce on your sausages, it makes them more compelling, but arent really essentail to have a filling meal. --The Grimch ^{U! E! WAT!} 15:27, 27 October 2007 (BST)

Some ruling would be nice. --The Grimch ^{U! E! WAT!} 01:48, 28 October 2007 (BST)

Not misconduct - simply because of the copyrighted image discussion -- boxy • talk • 04:04 28 October 2007 (BST)

So... we done? Can this be archived? --The Grimch ^{U! E! WAT!} 10:36, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

12 October 2007

ALL DISCUSSION HAVE BEEN MOVED TO THE TALK PAGE.-- Vista  +1  12:38, 11 October 2007 (BST)

for the banning of Nalikill dispite the fact that nalikill hasnt broken any written rule. both grim and hagnat have stated that they don't want Nalikill to post on the vandal page, yet on the UDWiki:Vandalism under what isnt vandalism it states "An unwanted edit to any page". in closeing all i wish to see from this is nalikill unbanned, and maybe an "unoffical warning" for grim.--'BP^Tmz 23:20, 10 October 2007 (BST)
From the A/VB talk page:

Just so everyone knows, because of these warnings that have been given, as well as numerous other talks on the subject with Nalikill on the matter, means that next time he edits the administrative pages and posts his crap there, we can be certain it was not a good faith edit to improve this wiki. It would be an edit made in bad faith to stir up drama, and because of these warnings, we can discount good faith when dealing with furture instances and can legitimately warn Nalikill for refusing to cease and desist in the face of numerous reasoned arguments as to why he should not do so. There is a rule there for us. Its under the definition of vandalism. Just because this process isnt explicitely spelled out doesnt make it invalid. --The Grimch ^{U! E! WAT!} 02:58, 6 October 2007 (BST)

What i was referring to was the policy we already have in place: Vandalism policy. The definition of Vandalism is: an edit not made in a good-faith attempt to improve this wiki. Since good faith has been discounted by both previous unofficial warnings, helpfully compiled on his user subpage by Nalikill himself here, adn it certainly wasnt improving the wiki, but telling the sysops what to do, i escalated his warning status when he did it again in the latest GUMBjork case. This led to his ban due to two previous warnings. --The Grimch ^{U! E! WAT!} 23:29, 10 October 2007 (BST)

Not Misconduct - I would have done the same. Nalikill got what he was asking for. --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{[cloned] [mod]} 23:35, 10 October 2007 (BST)

Lets see what other sysops have to say, just to be sure. You were, after all, mentioned in the case. --The Grimch ^{U! E! WAT!} 23:37, 10 October 2007 (BST)

i disagree. also on the Vandalism policy is this: "It is considered extremely poor form to automatically assume that a person's edit was an act of vandalism". you made the vandal report. shouldnt you have waited for another sysop to confirm and carry out the ban?--'BP^Tmz 23:45, 10 October 2007 (BST)

No. The new Guidelines allow us under point 4 of when When a user may be warned or banned.

A report has been filed through UDWiki:Administration/Vandal Banning, and the user doesn't match any of the previous instances shown above. In this instance, a system operator is specifically given the ability to warn/ban the user before a report is made on UDWiki:Administration/Vandal Banning, as long as the report is placed on that page shortly thereafter by the system operator or someone else. Furthermore, system operators are specifically given the ability to both report and warn/ban a user.

The unofficial warnings discounted all good faith, as i have said. all thats left is bad faith. --The Grimch ^{U! E! WAT!} 23:49, 10 October 2007 (BST)

i dont see how something unoffical can be used in an offical way, such as a banning.--'BP^Tmz 23:52, 10 October 2007 (BST)

As far as I can see the unofficial warnings are just that, he pissed you off and you warned him not to! That warning i would interpret as a warning from Grim the wiki editor and not Grim th sysop (hence its unofficial nature) This seems to b e a clash of personalities with you using sysop powers to deal with a personal disagreement. There is no rule to say he can't edit the page and no good reason why there should be if his comments are pertinent! You don't like his opinion and wholly without right warn him to keep it to himself and then ban him for not doing so.... How dare you decide that just because you don't want his comment its vandalism, in essence that is no different from deciding that because we disagree on wiki civility that all my edits are designed to cause drama and thus also vandalism. You have lost all semblance of neutrality Grim, get a grip or resign!!! --Honestmistake 00:01, 11 October 2007 (BST)

I will not resign. The unofficial warning does not mean from editor to editor. It is still from sysop to editor. It just means that the warning isnt being logged on the vandal Data page, because it is the opinion of the sysop that the behaviour doesnt deserve a warning of that strength. It is the equivelent of a cease and desist notice. --The Grimch ^{U! E! WAT!} 12:20, 11 October 2007 (BST)

Not misconduct. Nalikill was amply warned. It's a shame that is should happen so heavy handedly in the form of a 24 hour ban, but that was simply the correct step in the vandal banning escalation tree. I think we can close this case now.-- Vista  +1  00:38, 11 October 2007 (BST) This should remain unarchived for at least a day, so Nalikill can see it and post his two cents on it when he gets back, instead of filing for misconduct again himself, as he promised to do. --The Grimch ^{U! E! WAT!} 03:45, 11 October 2007 (BST)

Not misconduct - He was asking for it.--Thari ^{TжFedCom is BFI!} 09:48, 11 October 2007 (BST)

I've no problem with the decision, but I don't like the idea of reporting and warn/banning Nal yourself, Grim, in this case. It was obviously going to be a controversial decision, it's much better to allow others to make decisions such cases (still not misconduct though) -- boxy • talk • 10:31 11 October 2007 (BST)

Ugh... why was this split to talk? We had a nice response chain here. --The Grimch ^{U! E! WAT!} 13:49, 11 October 2007 (BST)

Because the segment was devolving into two spinoff discussion that were only half related to the case and involved several users that had no connection to the case. This way the actual case is clean and organized and can be archived without fuss later and everybody can still continue to chime in on the discussions on the talk for days without problems.-- Vista  +1  14:47, 11 October 2007 (BST)

Misconduct - Rules are rules, "He was asking for it" isn't a good enough reason to ban someone who annoyed you. IMHO.--The General ^{T Sys U! P! F!} 17:30, 11 October 2007 (BST)

That's four against one as not misconduct. --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{[cloned] [mod]} 17:45, 11 October 2007 (BST)

I know, but I may as well make the point that I don't agree with you lot.--The General ^{T Sys U! P! F!} 18:01, 11 October 2007 (BST)

He was asked repeatedly to stop disrupting administrative pages. He was given numerous warnings not to do so. He was told that if he disrupted them again, he could be banned for a day (Since he had two logged warnings), he was told, on no fewer than four occasions, to post his comments on the talk page, which he ignored. As a result, you cannot claim his edit was a good faith attempt to improve the wiki. The UDwiki:Vandalism defines vandalism as "an edit not made in a good-faith attempt to improve this wiki". Since his edit was not such an edit made in good faith it was, technically speaking, vandalism and got a warning. Unfortunately, his two prior warnings meant that this third warning came in the shape of a ban. The reason waas not that he was asking for it, but that his edit was vandalism because it was not made in good faith, and was disrupting the administrative pages despite numerous calls, both "official" and unofficial, to cease and desist and use the talk page instead. --The Grimch ^{U! E! WAT!} 22:07, 11 October 2007 (BST)

Yes, but previous actions don't necessarily determine future intent. I don't like the precident of just going around saying that further edits to a page by someone will be considered bad faith. I would, however, support making it an official policy to warn users who consistently spam up the Administration pages.--The General ^{T Sys U! P! F!} 22:47, 11 October 2007 (BST)

It wasnt previous actions that determined his future intent. It was our requests for him to stop disrupting the page that went ignored that led to bad faith. He had been asked to stop, to leave ruling on cases to sysops, to leave his comments on the talk page. He had been asked repeatedly. He disregarded us and kept posting on the admin page itself, clearly in bad faith as a reasult of all the reasoned requests to cease and desist. And he got nailed for it, as we had told him he would. He has no one to blame but himself. --The Grimch ^{U! E! WAT!} 02:48, 12 October 2007 (BST)

First off, General, thank you. And it pains me to say this, but Grimch was probably right to some extent. I was just testing the limits of what was appropriate and what wasn't- but I don't think a ban was appropriate, I offered, even, after being reported, to retract the comment- if no one's noticed- and for the record, the comment was made in entirely good faith. From now on, if I have a question about what's allowed, I'll go to Boxy or Vista or some neutral sysop and ask if it would be appropriate to say that on the main page. I apologize to the wiki for seeing brick walls and bashing my head up against them. I will attempt to refrain from interfering from now on. And I will attempt to stop being a wikilawyer- but that doesn't make the Crue not PK'ers.  Nalikill  ^{TALK  E!  W!  M!  USAI}  23:11, 11 October 2007 (BST)

So you admit you were editing in bad faith just to "test the limits", but still don't think you deserve to be punished? Wow. Not Misconduct. --Karlsbad 00:43, 12 October 2007 (BST)

I was in good faith trying to find the boundary so that I could stay behind it and if you think anything else, you are a lackwit who knows nothing of my character.  Nalikill  ^{TALK  E!  W!  M!  USAI}  03:55, 12 October 2007 (BST)

But we told you where the boundary was, and you still crossed it, apparently searching for what you already knew. --The Grimch ^{U! E! WAT!} 04:11, 12 October 2007 (BST)

No, you told me that spamming the page was wrong. I was wondering if good faith constructive input trying to be helpful talking only to the person who made the report and not the sysops still constituted spamming.  Nalikill  ^{TALK  E!  W!  M!  USAI}  04:16, 12 October 2007 (BST)

No, we told you that you rendering your own verdict on the page (back seat sysopping) was a bad thing. We used the term "spamming up the page" because your comments were irrelevant and they meant and contributed absolutely nothing of any value to the report (They are not discussions), and could only cause drama by having other users step in and shout at you for your often stupid and nonsensical "rulings" which then quickly spiral out of control creating a needlessly hostile atmosphere in the administrative pages until a sysop finally gets on, closes the case, and tosses all your retarded garbage to the talk page. You were told this and more on several occasions. You refused to heed our reasonable requests for you to cease using the main report space and instead use the talk page to file your opinions. We warned you again. You whined on the talk page that there was "no written rule" all the while remaining willfully ignorant of the fact that we had shown you exactly how the rules supported our actions. There are times when rules can be used in interesting, and still valid, ways to prevent abuse of particular pages on this wiki. You played along for a couple of days while having your tantrum in policy discussion, then you came back yesterday and you did it again, and i smacked you down for it, just like i said i would. I ignored your first comment on the page, as that was at least an attempt to help (and an unwelcome one at that, since the user was banned the day before) but the second comment was almost exactly a ruling on the case in question, and for that i got you, because you had defied our repeated reasonable requests/demands that you cease such disruptive behaviour, making your comment clearly in bad faith, willfully ignoring the fact that we had told you to cease and desist. You have no one to blame but yourself for your actions, and you should wear the consequences of your actions like a man, or at least a hominid. You knew what would happen going in. You knew we had a way to get you for it legally (We fucking explained it to you beforehand), you did it anyway, and now you are trying to weasel out of it. Its not going to work. --The Grimch ^{U! E! WAT!} 06:37, 12 October 2007 (BST)

11:53, 15 September 2007 (BST)

It seems that Grim decided to make a ruling when he has an open arbitration case against me. This smacks of bias and clearly shows that he cannot be impartial in this matter. The incident in question is Rogue's threat of violence against other wiki users. This was so surprising to people that it made Cyberbob say something against it. I'd like Grim's decision to be overturned, to have him warned against making any further rulings when it involves me, and get someone impartial to the situation to make a ruling on it. We shouldn't allow people to advocate actual physical violence on the wiki. Period. --Akule ^{School's in session.} 00:31, 14 September 2007 (BST)

Says the man who believes that advocating DDOS attacks on irc servers is okay, as long as they're paid for by me.--Jorm 01:38, 14 September 2007 (BST)

Boxy agreed with Grim's Ruling.--Karek^maps?! 01:39, 14 September 2007 (BST)

What are you even talking about? --Akule ^{School's in session.} 01:46, 14 September 2007 (BST)

I made the ruling at 04:57, 13 September 2007 (BST)
I joined the arb case at 09:01, 13 September 2007 (BST)
Oops, i just kicked your legs out from under you yet again. Dont let the door hit you in the arse on your way out. --The Grimch ^U! 04:04, 14 September 2007 (BST)

OH, and FYI: Expressing interest in a case is not the same as joining a case. --The Grimch ^U! 04:06, 14 September 2007 (BST)

It strikes me as there is a need for me to explain everything fully, before someone actually does the unthinkable and takes Akule's word for it without checking (Something i dont do. I always check, then weigh each case on its merits).
The first accusation, that i made a ruling against him while i allegedly had an arb case open against him has been demonstrated to be false. I joined the arb case just over four hours after ruling.
The incident in question was a statement of opinion, not a statement of intent. "A better idea would be". As it wasnt a threat in the first place, it cannot harm anyone. That was a perfect example of Akule trying to troll lawyer a valid statement that moved near the border into something that crossed it, because he appears to hate everyone.
The comment by Cyberbob, far from supporting Akule's case, is just a neutral "...Or not" comment. It had and still has absolutely no bearing on that case. It wasnt even there when i ruled on it, and as such could have been influenced by the ruling.
And Akule, while i may not like you very much at all, I do not judge a case by its contributors. I judge it based on its merits, in that case, by examining the case before i made a ruling. I found your report to be an exaggeration during the coure of my investigation. Your attempts to say that i was biased against you, and that this bias led to this ruling are disingenuous.
Besides, the Arb case isnt about a conflict of interests between users. Its about getting Akule to stop being a Troll Rules Lawyer. As such, no bias can be inferred from the fact that i am now on that team, unless you want to say everyone who percieves you as a Troll Rules Lawyer is also biased, in which case, i am afraid no one will be able to rule on your cases. --The Grimch ^U! 04:56, 14 September 2007 (BST)

Not Misconduct--The General ^{T Sys U! P! F!} 08:07, 14 September 2007 (BST)

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)