UDWiki:Administration/Misconduct/Archive/Grim s/2007

From The Urban Dead Wiki
< UDWiki:Administration‎ | Misconduct‎ | Archive‎ | Grim s
Revision as of 21:22, 13 November 2010 by Aichon (talk | contribs) (Fixing link)
(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to navigationJump to search

Administration » Misconduct » Archive » Grim s » 2007

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--SeventythreeTalk 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?--SeventythreeTalk 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)--SeventythreeTalk 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.--SeventythreeTalk 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. --Karekmaps?! 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.--SeventythreeTalk 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 Scotland flag.JPG 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

UDWiki:Administration/Misconduct/Archive/Grim s/2007#12 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.--'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)

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.--Karekmaps?! 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)
Retrieved from "http://wiki.urbandead.com//index.php?title=UDWiki:Administration/Misconduct/Archive/Grim_s/2007&oldid=1810092"