UDWiki:Administration/Misconduct/Archive/Grim s
|
Misconduct Tracker | |
| Misconduct | Not Misconduct | |
|---|---|---|
| 0 | 12 | |
05:28, 2 August 2008 (BST)
UDWiki:Administration/Misconduct/Archive/Grim s/200808
18 July 2008
UDWiki:Administration/Misconduct/Archive/Grim s/200807
30 June 2008
UDWiki:Administration/Misconduct/Archive/Grim s/200806
12 May 2008
UDWiki:Administration/Misconduct/Archive/Grim s/200805
4 January 2008
UDWiki:Administration/Misconduct/Archive/Grim s/200801
3 December 2007
UDWiki:Administration/Misconduct/Archive/Grim s/200712
14 November 2007
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)
- 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)
- 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)
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)
- Sure, you first -- boxy • talk • 09:46 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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.
- 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)
- 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.
- The page recreation could not be, in any way, considered good faith.
- 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.
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
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.--'BPTmz 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?--'BPTmz 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.--'BPTmz 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)
- 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 dont see how something unoffical can be used in an offical way, such as a banning.--'BPTmz 23:52, 10 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
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)
- 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)
- 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)
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)
- 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)
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)
- 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)
- 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)
- As soon as that whole proposition thing pulls through, I'm removing the petition from my User space. --SirensT RR 07:12, 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)
- 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)
- Answer the roll-back question. -- Amazing 19:15, 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)
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)
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)
- 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)
- 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)
- You proved the 'bad faith' nature in your commanty with the edit. -- Amazing 19:38, 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)
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)
