UDWiki talk:Administration/Misconduct/Archive/Grim s

From The Urban Dead Wiki
Jump to navigationJump to search

The Grimch

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)

Shall we jsut, you know, copy-paste the above bit down here?--SeventythreeTalk 23:21, 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)

So, just let me get this straight... Sysops can now issue warnings against anyone at any time even if they are not breaking rules? Said warnings are "unofficia" but can be used to back up banning that editor??? and you say you want free speech, of course you do! --Honestmistake 23:47, 10 October 2007 (BST)
Nalikill had two official warnings and two unofficial warnings. Both unofficial ones were related to his actions as a backseat moderador. He was asked twice! to stop commenting in vandal reports if he had nothing to add as evidence of guilt or innocence. Plenty of other users asked the same, and there is even a policy under voting about it where most, if not all, users agree that it is the status quo to have discussions in the talk page, not in the main vandal banning page. This shows that Nalikill is merely defying the administration staff, and acting in bad faith. --People's Commissar Hagnat [cloned] [mod] 23:54, 10 October 2007 (BST)
No. SysOps can warn a user before reporting them. --People's Commissar Hagnat [cloned] [mod] 23:48, 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)

Blood if I may add. I understand your bringing of this case was in good faith but you must understand the situation. Nal had been warned MANY times not to backseat mod. Besides its not up for debate if its vandalism; the mods and guidelines decide that so we dont need a big discussion on the vandal page especially from someone who has been warned to stop. Sockem 23:57, 10 October 2007 (BST)

Its as good a place as any. his edits seem in good faith to me (very quick look!) and I do not like the idea of sysops deciding that anything they do not like is bad faith... all edits are supposed to be considered good faith unless obviously not. Unofficial warnings mean squat!!! --Honestmistake 00:01, 11 October 2007 (BST)
yes, i understand that he was "unofficaliy warned", but i dont see how that can be used in an offical sense.--'BPTmz 00:00, 11 October 2007 (BST)
Honest whats the point of a mod if everyone has a right to over rule them whenever they dont like a ruling? Sockem 00:03, 11 October 2007 (BST)
because a mods there to administer not persecute people he/she doesn't agree with! --Honestmistake 00:05, 11 October 2007 (BST)
Agreement it doesnt matter. The point is Nalikill was warned to leave it to the mods. Nali refused. Here we are. Sockem 00:08, 11 October 2007 (BST)
no, nalikill was "unofficaly" warned to leave it to the sysops. would someone tell me what an unoffical warning is? do we have a page on it?--'BPTmz 00:10, 11 October 2007 (BST)
if there was such a page, they wouldnt be unofficial ;)
An unofficial warning is a warning that has no weight for account of vandalism, but that serves as basis for further warnings if the user carry on with the behavior he was unofficially warned. --People's Commissar Hagnat [cloned] [mod] 00:16, 11 October 2007 (BST)

Blood, Honest... you two dont seem to understand this situation very weel. Nalikill was previously warned two times for acts of vandalism (check on Vandal Data). After the administration notice asking users to comment on the talk page was placed, he proceed to comment in several cases with nothing but nonsense and rulings that had no weight. He was asked to stop commenting in the main page by myself, grim, boxy, and several other users and sysops. He was unofficially warned by me after he made several comments on vandal reports, and unofficially warned by grim too. He created the policy discussion to add true weight for the use the talk page guideline, which most users are voting down because the status quo is better, and it's just a bunch of guidelines anyway. He have shown no interest in following the request of the administration in several occasions. An official warning (leading to a 24h ban since it's his third warning) is the normal escalation for someone who can't act in good faith towards the wiki community. --People's Commissar Hagnat [cloned] [mod] 00:13, 11 October 2007 (BST)

yes but that warning was invalid, even Grim knew it was beyond his power as a sysop to demand he stop making edits so long as they were not vandalism, hence they were unofficial! What we have here is a case of a mod getting annoyed with a user and banning him for no good reason! In what way were the edits Nali made bad faith other than annoying Grim and Hagnat??? --Honestmistake 00:19, 11 October 2007 (BST)
that was before the edit conflict... Okay he was told not to leave comments and its bad form to continue and if he was doing so purely to spite the 2 of you then yes its bad faith too! However from comments of his I have seen look reasonable, he has a right to post there (as does anyone else) until that right is revoked then it is not good precedent to allow sysops to make ad hoc rulings which they then enforce with a ban! --Honestmistake 00:19, 11 October 2007 (BST)
Read this policy discussion: UDWiki:Administration/Policy Discussion/Vandal Banning page. There is plenty of people in there that agree that our actions are right, and that warning nalikill is legal. --People's Commissar Hagnat [cloned] [mod] 00:25, 11 October 2007 (BST)
Already read it and frankly he has a point.... you put the banner there as a reminder not to put useless crap on the page, what he asks for is that that banner be given official status or removed. If its official he is close to breaking the rule, if its not he is just disagreeing with your view of what is fine to edit! what he is doing has been putting valid opinion and evidence up, your own banner allows that? Sorry but thats not bad faith in my book.--Honestmistake 00:30, 11 October 2007 (BST)
If that notice had been illegally created, there would be plenty of people to remove it and i would have been brought to vandalism for editing an administration page guidelines without consulting the rest of the wiki community. But my notice reflects exactly what the rest of the administration staff thinks, and it's even being improved by normal users. --People's Commissar Hagnat [cloned] [mod] 00:41, 11 October 2007 (BST)
then should we have a vote to see if the coumminty wants the notic placed on the vandal page? nothing more, just to see if it should stay.--'BPTmz 00:44, 11 October 2007 (BST)
The policy nalikill started and i have written already covers this voting. People pretty much agree that this is right, and that it should stay as only a guideline for the vandal banning page. And we dont need to vote on common sense. --People's Commissar Hagnat [cloned] [mod] 01:45, 11 October 2007 (BST)

long story short: he is "helping" yes he's telling everyone info they already know, but i dont see how that can be considered bad faith.--'BPTmz 00:23, 11 October 2007 (BST)

It's not good faith when you are several times asked by the administration staff to stop commenting. --People's Commissar Hagnat [cloned] [mod] 00:25, 11 October 2007 (BST)
FFS it doesnt matter A MOD SAYS DONT COMMENT DONT FUCKING COMMENT.Nali is a vandal no better than Izumi. Sockem 00:29, 11 October 2007 (BST)
That would be wrong Sockem. SysOps are nothing but normal users with the power to delete/undelete/protect pages and punish vandals. Our opinion weights no more than a regular user. --People's Commissar Hagnat [cloned] [mod] 00:35, 11 October 2007 (BST)
and we come full circle back to this. as stated on theUDWiki:Administration/Guidelines "System operators are not any "more worthy" than any other user", and as stated on the UDWiki:Vandalism under what isnt vandalism "An unwanted edit to any page." therefore even if the sysops dont what you posting somewhere as long as you dont break any of the other rules you should be free to do so. --'BPTmz 00:40, 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)

You're right. I meant Administration page, but when a mod (I hate synops I aint sayin it) asks you not to vandalize you just dont do it. I say Grim was kind not to make them official warnings.The vandal banning page is meant for MODS to pass judgement on alleged vandalism. If you look at his edits hes always the first person there making 'rulings'. Debate amoung users not involved in the vandal page should be brought to the mods or users involved talk pages. If a user finds a mods judgement out of line that is what THIS page is for. This is how the system works. Sockem 00:42, 11 October 2007 (BST)

I type too slow...

Except Nalikill isn't an insistent sockpuppet. Grim was right to ban, he had many warnings, some of them being "unofficial warnings" on his talk page while others elsewhere. Although it isn't a written rule, he was disrupting the vandal page consistently that led to pointless drama. 1 day might have been too long, but that was Grim's decision to make and you have to leave it at that. I'm sure Nalikill will stop and contribute something less drama filled to the wiki (which he has done with autoblacking after I pointed it out).--  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 00:45, 11 October 2007 (BST)

Yeh I used to type slow too. Anyway I only meant to compare them in that they both vandalize. Regardless of reason a bad faith edit and breaking of rules result in warnings/bans. Just like what happened with Izumi. Sockem 00:49, 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)

I don't think deliberately hamstringing sysops in order to avoid misdirected complaining is the best way to go, Boxy. Don't blame the sysops for the drama; blame those who actually start it without checking to make sure they have all the facts beforehand. --Cyberbob DORIS CGR U! 11:12, 11 October 2007 (BST)
I don't see it as hamstringing, rather it is checking that your view of what vandalism is, is supported by the wider sysops community by getting a second opinion in all by the most obvious of cases -- boxy • talk • 11:28 11 October 2007 (BST)
Boxy, i had a fairly good idea it was the concensus of the sysops, given the large showing of us in support on both the vandal banning talk page and the vandal banning policy voting and talk pages. Besides, id much rather wear the brunt of this case on thing on myself rather than let some other person take it, since i was one of the primary participants in the discussion on the issue. --The Grimch U! E! WAT! 11:46, 11 October 2007 (BST)
While being willing to taking the shit that goes with such a ruling, upon yourself may be admirable, the shit was always going to be worse if you unilaterally did it yourself, given your interactions with Nali over the past few days. Given that you stated quite clearly over the past few days that your position was that this is vandalism, it gives the impression that the case has been pre-judged, rather than a case being presented by one party, and then assessed on it's merits by another impartial adjudicator that determines the outcome. I'm just uncomfortable with us having the power to rule on cases that we ourself put forward, unless it clear that no other interpretation can be reached... and this isn't one of those cases. Like I said though, not misconduct -- boxy • talk • 12:01 11 October 2007 (BST)
It had been made clear to him by a large number of sysops that the number of warnings to stop he had been given eliminated good faith from consideration, and thus his edits would fall precisely within the definition of vandalism. It wasnt just me who was saying this, it was myself, hagnat, vista, karlsbad, and Zombie Slay3r, with thari clipping in too here. Thats half or more of the active sysops previously stating in advance they were sick of it. Since in this case good faith was not an issue, and that would be the only thing saving them from action taken, i saved everyone time and effort by simply applying it myself, as i was entitled to do under the administrator guidelines. --The Grimch U! E! WAT! 12:10, 11 October 2007 (BST)
I don't dispute any of that, and I had made it clear myself to Nali that he should stop as well. But that doesn't change my point... it makes me uncomfortable, and I don't think it's a good thing to do. It just doesn't look right, IMO, M'kay -- boxy • talk • 12:14 11 October 2007 (BST)
Well, as i said. Saved time and effort, and prevented Nalikill from filling the page with justifiable (in the sense that he was actually involved, for once) whining on the page. Besides, he knew as soon as i posted it that he had done wrong and was fucked, as evidenced by the hasty apology he got out a couple of seconds before i dropped the hammer on him. --The Grimch U! E! WAT! 12:27, 11 October 2007 (BST)
Once again, I don't disagree with anything there, other than the saving sysop time and effort... ruling on this case yourself was always going to end up here, involving many other sysops having to trawl through this case -- boxy • talk • 14:25 11 October 2007 (BST)
It was always going to end here regardless of who ruled (Nalikill said as much on the VB talk page). I figured, what the hey, why not me? Saves time for everyone. That and im not particularly bothered by such attacks anymore. They are more amusing than threatening. --The Grimch U! E! WAT! 14:58, 11 October 2007 (BST)

On pretty much any other page this would have counted as edit conflict and gone to arbitration (which Grim would rightly have won) Instead Grim used his position as a Mod to ban a user who was not breaking any rules. Some of his comments look useful, others should really have been on the talk page but what it comes down to is that he broke a guide line which was put up without any real authority and then given antagonistic unofficial warnings for not following it. I suspect it was those warnings and the personality clash which escalated this and has now created a very bad precedent!--Honestmistake 11:40, 11 October 2007 (BST)

It wasnt a guideline. It wasnt in one go. It was the result of over a week of us asking Nalikill to stop back seat sysopping in the fucking administration pages. He was giving out rulings with neither the position, nor clue as to the rules and we were getting frustrated because no matter what it made us look like either idiots or ogres. We told him to stop repeatedly. We gave him ample opportunity to change his ways and prevent making a mockery of the vandal banning page, he refused. Hence, the non official (as in non escalation) warnings and the ban (Which was there because he had two official warnings previously), because we had repeatedly pointed out he was interfering with the process of the page, and his contributions were being made in bad faith because he simply refused to cease messing with that page despite our repeated attempts to set him right and use the damned talk page. --The Grimch U! E! WAT! 11:46, 11 October 2007 (BST)
Right, I just spent a good bit of time looking through the history log of these edits and I agree with your warning on the 5th, not only that but i think making it an unofficial warning to stop it and step back was the right way to do it... It was phrased in such a way as to antagonize but his comment in the GUMBjork case was well out of order! Other than that one though most of his other edits were either pointless (but harmless) or because he was involved (either through making the report or adding to it) or in direct response to his warnings! I can see no real reason for Hagnats warning but i admit to only going back as far as the 30th and not searching out the history in depth for that one! What i can't see is any justification for a ban 5 days later? Apart from response to his warning (on the 6th) he made 2 edits that I can see and while both were fairly pointless (just being links to evidence) neither was likely to inflame or sway judgement. He is guilty of disregarding your strong recomendation which basically makes this an edit conflict of sorts which should have been resolved through Arbitration... a case which i am pretty sure you and any other mods willing to back you would have rightly won and had him officially restricted from adding to any case he was not directly involved in! Please if I have missed something then just add a link to the edit you decided to escalate to a ban for.--Honestmistake 14:04, 11 October 2007 (BST)

The Grimch

Kind of an aside here - it'd be appreciated if Grim_s were more civil in the way he conducts himself on the wiki. His conduct in this complaint doesn't speak well of him. --Pgunn 05:37, 26 August 2007 (BST)

There is no rule saying he has to be nice to anyone. So if he wanted to tell you to eat shit and die he has every right to do so. --Sonny Corleone RRF DORIS CRF pr0n 05:42, 26 August 2007 (BST)
He is not saying that there is a rule about being nice. He is just asking. Perhaps in the wrong place.--Thari TжFedCom is BFI! 05:46, 26 August 2007 (BST)
one would expect however for mods to be more civil. they are the ones dealing with the public after all.--'BPTmz 05:50, 26 August 2007 (BST)
Sysops are NOT moderators. A sysop exists to rule on cases that have to do with vandalism and perform wiki upkeep tasks, none of which require him or her to be nice at all. I could be the most obnoxious person here, and still be damned good at my job. That said, if people demonstrate intelligence and dont generally act like dicks, ill be nice. If people insist on being idiots, i refuse to reign in my instinct to pounce and maim. As a wise man once said: Learn or burn. --The Grimch Mod-U! 06:02, 26 August 2007 (BST)
my point still stands whatever you call yourselves. you spend time in the publics eye. as such, one would expect you to behave in a somewhat dignified manner. that said, i have seen far worse occurances on this wiki then what is written above.--'BPTmz 06:08, 26 August 2007 (BST)
Actually it does matter what we call ourselves case in point, UDWiki:Administration/Policy Discussion/Sysops are not Moderators this policy exists for the mostly to explain that all sysops are not friendly - Vantar 06:12, 26 August 2007 (BST)
Some of us can be downright hostile :D --The Grimch Mod-U! 06:17, 26 August 2007 (BST)
and i understand that. i even voted for that policy. however, my point above was that no matter what you call yourself, mod, Sysop, or even your average user. One should not behave in a hostile manner if you are in the publics eye. i do realise this is wishful thinking but as grimch said above "If people insist on being idiots, i refuse to reign in my instinct to pounce and maim" however two wrongs do not make a right.--'BPTmz 06:21, 26 August 2007 (BST)
Some required reading is in order methinks. And actually, you would be amazed how often two wrongs make a right --The Grimch Sysop-U! 06:24, 26 August 2007 (BST)
oh, i'm just ranting. i realise that theres no way in hell we could make all the users on this wiki "play nice", but everynow and again it doesnt hurt to try and push the community in that direction.--'BPTmz 06:30, 26 August 2007 (BST)
The doctor told me if I play nice there is a good chance I could develop AIDS. So I am insulted by your assumption that playing nice can't hurt. --Sonny Corleone RRF DORIS CRF pr0n 06:40, 26 August 2007 (BST)
ha!now you see my true plan! to make everyone on the wiki play nice and get aids, the stage a take over!--'BPTmz 06:42, 26 August 2007 (BST)
See why i wont play nice? Also, please check out Project UnWelcome. The link is in my sig. Oh and dont mind the archiving and talk paging of this discussion. It had to be done. --The Grimch Sysop-U! 07:00, 26 August 2007 (BST)
Meh, he's insulting... some people deserve the insults. But it does seem to make just more work. Hey Grimch... how about taking it easy on the newbies on the suggestions talk page though? They probably deserve to cop it when they take their crucifix suggestions straight to voting, but when they do the right thing, and put it up for discussion first, I think they've earned the right to a bit of a break The preceding signed comment was added by boxy (talk • contribs) at 07:11 26 August 2007 (BST)

I'm sure my opinion doesn't matter much to the mighty and all-powerful administration, but I'll put it this way for you: The Grimch is trying to act hardcore with the keyboard. Simply put, he's hoping to be cool (or have others think he's cool) by pretending to be a "badass" and acting like a jerk. He wants respect from the online community, and, being too lazy to obtain it through work and kindness, is hoping to gain followers being a bully. Izumi Orimoto 07:37, 26 August 2007 (BST)

Grim doesn't have to pretend to be badass. He's been around too long to pretend. Everyone knows it already, except noobs who post about how he pretends to be badass. --Sonny Corleone RRF DORIS CRF pr0n 07:43, 26 August 2007 (BST)

Sonny, you are an idiot. Izumi Orimoto 09:06, 26 August 2007 (BST)

Like i said. I couldnt care less what people think of me, even if you paid me. So what if you think im "badass". I have honestly never thought nor cared about the term. Im just me. Love me or hate me. --The Grimch Sysop-U! 09:08, 26 August 2007 (BST)

I'm sure that's what you'd like us all to think. -_- Izumi Orimoto 09:12, 26 August 2007 (BST)

Meh. Ive got better things to do, like read up on the latest news in astronomy. --The Grimch Sysop-U! 09:20, 26 August 2007 (BST)

Grim

On Grim's side here.While his tag-line to the banning does show a disregard for the ban he was still serving he didn't actually edit anything did he? Banning a vandal who by the look of things had made more than 1 vandal edit merely cuts short their spree. Yes he could have contacted another sysop and drawn attention to the problem but how much more work would that have been (both for him and whoever he tracked down!) Banning this prick was in everyones best interests and doing it fast rather than within protocol was without doubt the best course. If ever there was a case for discretion it is this and a "slap on the wrist" should have been more than sufficient. This really should be a case of "no foul, no crime" --Honestmistake 16:46, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't disagree that a slap on the wrist is all that's necessary--I'm not against the Grimch--I just want the notion of "ban" to mean that no matter what your intentions are, you are _away_ from the wiki for that period. That's all. Honestly, maybe I am wrong, but I hope it's not too radical a stance to take. --Barbecue Barbecue 16:55, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
Honest, he didn't wait to see whether any other sysops were online. As it happened, Karlsbad was - and would have been more than capable of banning the vandal himself. Maybe, maybe if Grim had waited - then the breaking of the ban might have been justified. But he rushed straight in - as you say, disregarding the ban - without really stopping to think. --Cyberbob DORIS CGR U! 17:00, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
Godamn it, you're right! Clearly what this terrible and blatant vandal deserves to be banned! Rather than, say thanked for getting rid of a vandal. As far as I was aware, it's usualy best practice to ban a definate vandal as soon as possible to stop them doing any further damage.--SeventythreeTalk 17:03, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
When you drop the smartarsery I'll start listening. Sound fair? --Cyberbob DORIS CGR U! 17:08, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
You was a sysop once bob, you know how it is when you spot a vandal. It isnt important to sit and idle while the vandal spread chaos, the important is to stop him from causing more harm. --People's Commissar Hagnat [cloned] [mod] 17:04, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
What's five or ten minutes? Reversion can be performed by any editor with a single click, and it's not as though the vandal was particularly prolific. --Cyberbob DORIS CGR U! 17:08, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
My point was that in checking which (if any) other sysops were active (i am assuming its easy if you know how) Grim would have wasted time, by contacting them he would have wasted more time and then even more time would be wasted while sysop b (karlsbad?) checked what was going on! In that amount of time a fairly large amount of shit could have been caused and that is not something that should be left to happen just because of a possible technical breach of rules! I don't agree with much of what Grim stands for on a day-to-day basis but when it comes to active vandals he is my Sysop of choice to be on duty. Borderline cases like Nali's are where we disagree but for shit like this he has never to my knowledge made a bad call... this is not it! --Honestmistake 17:13, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
There is no way to check who is on.--Karekmaps?! 17:14, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
Honest, you sure you don't want to reread what I wrote? Most edits can be reverted by anyone with a single click. Even if Grim had waited, helpful users would have been able to hold the line (and, indeed, did for the couple of minutes it took for him to notice what was happening) Only things they can't revert are image uploads - which are hardly urgent matters for a sysop's attention. --Cyberbob DORIS CGR U! 17:22, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
You can revert image changes, just not new images. But, it's not exactly easy to constantly revert vandals and it craps up the wiki with needless edits, recent changes spam, and watchlist spam all of which interfere with use of the wiki and maintenance of it.--Karekmaps?! 17:28, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
Now you're really stretching. There are plenty of users going around - it's no strain on them to keep in check the actions of one vandal. Like I said. All it would have taken for Grim to be able to (reasonably) get out of this would have been to wait a few minutes to make sure no other sysops were online. A banned sysop should only use his abilities as a last resort. Yes, he didn't know whether there were any other sysops on. But did he bother to try and find out? No. --Cyberbob DORIS CGR U! 17:33, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
I saw this case way earlier in the day when all it really involved was Boxy's comment on Grims page... I wondered what he had done and looked but found he hadn't edited anything so i was confused. When I noticed it boils down to him banning a repeat vandal I thought well done Grim, end of story... Obviously I was wrong! I did assume there was a function that allowed sysops to see who was online but Kareks assurance that this is not the case just makes me even more sure he did the right thing. I don't care if someone can and did keep reverting... ban the vandal and no one needs to hold him at bay any longer, thats what sysops are actually for. They are not here to lord it over anyone and they are not "trusted" in any sense beyond this sort of function. Janitor is the term most commonly used so give him a break and leave him alone when he is cleaning up the mess trying to pin misconduct on this just draws attention away from his genuine misdemeanors!--Honestmistake 17:31, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
I refuse to acknowledge your posts until you acknowledge mine. My point is, good Honest, that he should have waited to see whether any other sysops were online to catch the vandal themselves. Doing it himself should only have been a last resort. --Cyberbob DORIS CGR U! 17:36, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
Sorry Bob, thought I had addressed it really. I just don't agree with you here, I think that what he did was 100% the right thing to do with an active vandal. There was no way it could be regarded as an edit conflict or anything other than vandalism and not taking immediate action would have deserved his losing sysop powers on the spot (of course we would never have known!) Yes others were holding the fort but once Grim banned him they no longer had to. Karlsbad was active but hadn't noticed and Grim had no way to tell if he was still online other than wait or message him. I really do think that this is actually to Grims credit rather than grounds for punishment... Are you sure you are not letting personal feelings cloud here? While his arbies avoidance was bang out of order I just don't see what else he could reasonably have done here that wouldn't have opened him up to complaint? --Honestmistake 17:50, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

You're all acting like twelve year-olds . All this stupid misconduct and stabbing people in the back has just made me twice as certain that I don't ever want to take an active part in the wiki. If you're not one of the "in-crowd"; you get slaughtered for making a bit of a mistake; if you make a suggestion you get spammed into oblivion; and even being a big contributor doesn't help. There's really no point ever doing anything on here. Jonny12 talk 22:42, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

It's just a little flash-fire. Nothing to be alarmed about. The sysop community tends to self-regulate, and the correct result was eventually decided upon. Of course it wasn't misconduct. --Funt Solo QT Scotland flag.JPG 22:47, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Grim 2.0

Grim s said:
The first reason is because the proposed change is so fucking tiny that it is meaningless.
I guess we surmise that Grim does not like John Pyre's suggestions. --User:Axe27/Sig 18:01, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
MostMany people don't because he has no mental filter between creating and submitting. If it's not there and he wants it Jon suggests it.--Karekmaps?! 18:04, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
And does that honestly excuse abusing or the appeared abusing of power,Karek? Remeber Gage and Mr.Aushvictiz? --User:Axe27/Sig 18:12, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Except he wasn't abusing it, he used it exactly what it was there for. The suggestion had 10 spam votes, 2 keep and 2 kill. If Midianian hadn't waited as long as he did it would have been spam removed anyway. The only reason Jon's complaining, as far as I can tell, is because Kevan made a comment on his talk page and now it's gone to Jon's head.--Karekmaps?! 18:21, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure but I believe this is more because of the monumental change (which had 3 keeps, 4 kills and 5 spams) than the radio frequencies one (which actually had 2 keeps, 3 kills and 7 spams). --Midianian|T|T:S|C:RCS| 18:45, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
I have to agree. If anything, Grim has followed the letter of the law when it comes to the cycling instructions for spam. He hasn't overstepped his bounds as a Sysop when it comes to the ability to cycle the suggestion. --Ryiis 18:31, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
I'm in agreement. Grim hasn't even pushed the rules a little bit. He's been upfront and honest and merely doing what he is supposed to do in using his sysop powers to further the efficiency of the wiki by removing spammed suggestions that patently where not going to even scrape through the two week period. Instead of seeking to persecute Grim_s (and quite frankly I'm amazed this is even being taken seriously!) maybe Jon Pyre should look to what he's doing wrong in the area of suggestin making that is resulting in so many of his suggestions getting shot down. He's actualy come up with a couple of good suggestions, if he would just ake them to the talk page as has been advised time after time after time this sort of thing wouldn't happen. Blaming others for your own mistakes is never a good idea. That's my opinion anyway.--SeventythreeTalk 19:42, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
And it helps if they stay on the talkpage longer than two hours before they're put to voting. --Midianian|T|T:S|C:RCS| 19:49, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

It's 7 spam votes, right? Monumental change had only 5 spam. --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 20:42, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Taken directly from Suggestions:Cycling Instructions: "...a Sysop can if they so choose delete any suggestion with three or more Spams as long as Spams outnumber Keeps". --Ryiis 20:45, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Mmm. I see. That's a terrible rule. 3 people that hate the suggestion = bam gone. --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 20:48, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Can we get a tally of how often Grim has applied it, and to whom?  Nalikill  TALK  E!  W!  M!  USAI  20:50, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Does it matter? It's within the confines of the rules, regardless of whom he has done it too. It's perfectly legit within the rule of the law. Unprincipled? That's subjective to each user depending on their bias to either party... it's not misconduct. --Ryiis 20:55, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Not including Jon’s: Xan2020’s Adding menorah’s to UD, Midianian’s Knockout, are the two most recent by the way. So it's not just Jon, though I'm surprised there isn't more of Pyre's with the number of suggestions he tries to get through. --Ryiis 21:04, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Here is more! Bob Snarkies', Mattiator's, Mark15's. It's not just Jon --Ryiis 21:09, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
It is somewhat subjective, I won't argue that. Still, could you imagine a suggestion sitting there for two weeks because it doesn't have 2/3rds or greater of the "total" number of votes, even though it's obviously a spam-worthy suggestion? --Ryiis 20:53, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Did you miss the part where it said Spams have to outnumber Keeps? Hurr. --Cyberbob DORIS CGR U! 21:01, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Nope. A few spam, a few kill. Gone in 6hrs(?). Might have been some keeps later, but not everyone is online at once.--  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 21:04, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
*wipes a tear from his eye at the thought of all those wrongly spaminated suggestions* --Cyberbob DORIS CGR U! 21:21, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
*Begins to sing a mournful song.* --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 21:36, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Case Tally

Conclusion: No bias in spam application; slight bias in the Sysop-spamination, due to unavoidable personality conflict, and number of suggestions Jon makes.

He's put the spam template on 14 pages, and 4 of those were Jon Pyre suggestions, all of Grim's addings of the template between Jan 4, 2008 and November 13th totaled 14 pages. He has however applied his sysop spamination power only three to six times in that period, and two or three times of that were on Jon Pyre suggestions. He has especially recently tended to use it more.

In that same period, Jon Pyre made 17 suggestions; meaning that (crunching the numbers)

%Grim Spammed Jon 29%
%Grim SysopSpammed Jon 33%
%Jon Spaminated 24%

(percentages rounded up.)  Nalikill  TALK  E!  W!  M!  USAI  21:13, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

It still doesn't show any bias. You could change those numbers around for the entire time Grim has been here. Or I could start stuffing the page with percentages of total suggestions versus the number of suggestion Jon makes. Then get the percentage of Spaminated suggestion Jon has made in relation. Stats do not prove intent. --Ryiis 21:20, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
I said there was no bias in how he applied the template; a slight personal bias as to how he applied the sysop-spamination, but I agree there was no abuse of powers. He let his personal feelings into it, which, although wrong, is unavoidable as he is human. I'm making my own conclusions; but I've put the stats out there for as far back as I felt was relevant.  Nalikill  TALK  E!  W!  M!  USAI  21:22, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
1) Grim is pretty much the most active sysop as far as enforcement of all user involved sections of a Sysop's duties. 2)I can only assume you didn't include suggestions before the change of the system. 3)Your stats are woefully lacking for attempting to say anything other than Grim is biased, it's essentially manipulating the possible results so only the one exists.--Karekmaps?! 21:30, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Hell, I was trying to prove that he WASN'T.  Nalikill  TALK  E!  W!  M!  USAI  21:32, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
May I suggest a job with CNN then? --Ryiis 21:35, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Why not. I might lend them some credibility.  Nalikill  TALK  E!  W!  M!  USAI  21:36, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
One could only hope --Ryiis 21:44, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

This is stupid. --Cyberbob DORIS CGR U! 21:26, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Agreed.--Karekmaps?! 21:30, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Statistics

Let's have some real statistics, why don't we? The following are all Grim's sysop-spams from the last two months or so in reverse chronological order. The reason why this only goes back a few months is that Grim didn't do much sysop-spamination before that. I checked back to August and came out empty-handed. I didn't want to spend too much time on this, so I might have missed some.

Some explanations:

  • Spamination: this is the value that has to be over 66% to qualify for regular spamination.
  • Spam per Keep: this is the value that has to be over one to qualify for sysop spamination.
  • Acceptance: this is the value that has to be over 50% to get to Undecided and over 66% to get to Peer Reviewed.
Keep Kill Spam Total Spamination Spam per Keep Acceptance Jon's?
3 4 5 12 42% 1.7 25% yes
2 3 7 12 58% 3.5 17% yes
10 6 13 29 45% 1.3 34% no
0 11 8 19 42% inf 0% no
4 18 14 36 38% 3.5 11% no
2 7 4 13 30% 2 15% no
3 11 6 20 30% 2 15% no
2 9 8 19 42% 4 10% no
3 14 15 32 47% 5 9% no
7 14 18 39 46% 2.6 17% no

Let's see some averages:

Value Jon Others
avg. total number of votes 12 26
avg. spams per keep 2.6 4.6
avg. spamination 50% 40%
avg. acceptance 21% 14%

The total number of votes is quite clearly against Grim. The number of Spams per Keeps is also somewhat against Grim, but this number doesn't tell much. The spamination percentage is slightly in favor of Grim and the average acceptance rating is slightly against.

From my point of view, it does seem that Grim has some bias against Jon, especially in that he removes Jon's suggestions much earlier than others', but abusing his powers? The rest of the numbers aren't that different. He's just a bit hasty when it comes to Jon. A friendly piece of advice; let the voting continue longer, you'll avoid drama. --Midianian|T|T:S|C:RCS| 23:47, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Congrats, you fail just like Nali. First off %s don't show bias unless there is a massive difference, but even if they did those are low enough and close enough that the assumption goes to unbiased. Second, your numbers are unreadable beyond the obvious ones you want to appear extreme, you make no actual sense. Third, your method of comparison sucks, You go from when Grim became a Sysop, not when he started spaminating stuff, especially considering Jon has, in that time, suggested pretty much more things than any other user, you're purposely lowering the numbers and it horribly skewers the stats in the favor of your preferred findings. Fourth, stop taking samples from only Grim's history, he isn't the only person to sysop spaminate and focusing only on his limits true interpretation of the stats to whatever you want to say. And Finally, just because Jon gets more things spaminated doesn't mean a bias, it could also mean a higher ratio of Shitty spam worthy ideas than other users, and considering his history with what he has suggested I for one wouldn't be at all surprised if that was the case, people can only take so much of the same thing with slight variations, for example NOT EVERYTHING NEEDS TO BE COLORABLE.--Karekmaps?! 00:06, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
Serious CNR.
  • The percentages don't show bias, just as I said.
  • The case is about Grim's recent actions, not his whole career.
  • The case is about Grim's bias against Jon, not every sysop's bias against Jon or every sysop's bias against everybody. I compare Grim's actions towards Jon to Grim's actions towards other people. Other sysops don't really come into the picture.
  • I'm not saying Jon gets spaminated more. I'm saying Jon gets spaminated with less votes than others.
Read before posting. Also, could you explain what you meant with "unreadable" and "purposely lowering numbers"? --Midianian|T|T:S|C:RCS| 00:33, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
1)CNR is an idiots comment usually made because the person is too dumb to understand what the other person said. 2)You are using the percentages to try and show that he has a bias, even if you said you aren't it's pretty obvious what you are trying to do. 3) This is a case about Grim's history with spaminating votes, as such it's about his whole history as a sysop, or at least how long he's had the ability to spaminate votes. 4) You're saying Jon gets an unfair bias but aren't willing to actually do anything beyond show how often he gets spaminated or even provide the fact that there might be other reasons why he gets spaminated more with less votes or what those reasons are. You're saying Jon is being targeted by Grim and that Grim is abusing his power but you aren't taking into account what any other sysops do, how many things Jon suggests, how many of Jon's suggestions as a whole have been spaminated/Sysop spaminated. All you are providing information for is that Grim has Sysop Spaminated what, 2?(It looks like you are saying it was two on your little chart), of Jon's suggestions. 2 suggestions is not a sample space, 2 suggestions is attempting to skew stats and hide the truth. Grim's removed 2 suggestions? How about how many of Jon's suggestions he hasn't removed? I'm sure it's been more than two in this week along considering Jon suggests pretty much a thing a day. You're simply trying to make the stats match the results you want them to and misrepresenting them in your summary/interpertation(you use them as one and the same). That's so despicable only the News Media does that(NBC Universal, the RIAA, MPAA, Fox, etc.). I should coin a new phrase just for things like this, Caught Not Thinking.--Karekmaps?! 01:01, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
1) If you did read it, then you just didn't understand it.
2) I'm not using percentages against anyone. The percentages are just facts. I'm using the averages of those percentages. And even of those I said that they're only slightly against and slightly in favor.
3) Including Grim's history could as well skew the numbers. I'd rather do this by his recent actions than by whatever he's done ages ago.
4) How often Jon gets spaminated is not the issue here, and I haven't used it in any part of my statistics. They're all averages. I'm not saying Jon is being targeted by Grim, only that Grim has a bias against him. Targeting is a conscious decision, bias is not. No, I'm not taking into account what other sysops do because this isn't about other sysops. This is about if Grim treats Jon differently than others, which is exactly what I've compared here. Yes, the sample space is small, but that's how many Jon's suggestions Grim has sysop-spaminated recently (or at least those that I could find). You're free to go digging for more if you want. You're just presuming bad faith and ulterior motives on my part. Feel free to prove your accusations with facts. --Midianian|T|T:S|C:RCS| 01:32, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
Wow, that's the best you could come up with? So if you flip a coin three times and 2 are heads, 1 is tails, does that mean that all flips will always end up 66% heads? There's a reason small sample spaces aren't used, because they can't show any real information, 2 is the smallest possible sample space without an automatic 100%/0%, you used 2, you're stats are useless and the only thing that showing big %s like that can do is serve as a basis of saying Grim leans one way without any actual truth in the numbers. So yeah, you are using the percentages against him and your conclusions drawn from your percentages lack any sense of reality. You're goal is to see if Grim is being meaner to Jon than he should be, in this case spaminating more things than he should. As such you need three things in your data, Grim's record as a whole, Everyone else's records against Jon, and Jon's overall suggestions record as a whole. You have none of those, not even Grim's record because you chose to take an extremely small portion of that, specifically 2 suggestions out of the, I'm sure hundreds, that Grim has seen, commented on, been involved in, you're faking the percents, you're purposely watering down the sample space to get the least factually based results possible, and you're trying to justify it by saying only Grim's actions matter, not Jon's record, not the actual content, not why the actions were taken, and not other Sysops decisions in similar situations or with the same user. It's bullshit and you know it so please stop trying to insult my, and everyone else's, intelligence.--Karekmaps?! 01:44, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
When are you going to get that I didn't say anything about the amount of spaminations, only the quality?
As I said, the percentages are just facts. I included them because I had counted them and didn't want to be biased by presenting only chosen calculations. If you don't believe that grim has sysop-spaminated only two of Jon's suggestions in the past two months, go dig up more. You're just saying that you don't belive that my facts are true. If they're as false as you claim, then they should be easy to prove wrong. If you can't, stop spewing uninformed opinions and beliefs. --Midianian|T|T:S|C:RCS| 02:07, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
That's exactly what I mean by CNR being used as an excuse when the person can't follow the post. I never said anything about how many things Grim Sysop-spaminated, I don't care how many he did. I'm saying that your facts aren't facts, just numbers, there's no reality, no factuality in those numbers because of how you chose to present them and how you chose to exclude any numbers that could have created factuality/reality, you filtered out everything that couldn't help your view/interpretation. Maybe you should actually start trying to figure out what I meant by the pennies question. There's a reason 2 isn't a valid sample space in any statistics related area of anything, it can never, ever, prove anything as far as trends are concerned. And yet you are still trying to say that you're non-existant sample space proves Grim is biased. That informed enough for you?--Karekmaps?! 02:16, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
Never said anything about how many things Grim Sysop-spaminated? Then what's this; "You're goal is to see if Grim is being meaner to Jon than he should be, in this case spaminating more things than he should." At no point did I claim or try to prove that he was spaminating more than he should. And my point wasn't to see if Grim is meaner to Jon than he should (he's meaner than he should to everyone), but to see if Grim is meaner to him than to others (ie. bias). In order to show that, I only need Grim's actions towards others and Grim's actions towards Jon.
I didn't exclude any numbers. I didn't filter anything. I included all my calculations just so that I wouldn't be biased. We don't need a wide sample space for Jon's suggestions. We have eight other suggestions which is enough to show the general trend in Grim's decisions. We can then compare Jon's two suggestions to this general trend and say that in both suggestions the total amount of votes at the time of removal is well below average. In fact, they're not just below average, they're the lowest on the list. --Midianian|T|T:S|C:RCS| 09:45, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
Also, comparison with other sysops is kind of hard as only one Jon's suggestion was sysop-spaminated by someone other than Grim (by Karlsbad). That suggestion had 4 keeps, 10 kills and 7 spams, total 21 votes at the time of closing.
Having gone through the rest of the suggestions in Category:Spammed Suggestions today, I can tell you that there is no more sysop-spamination cases by Grim in there. The ones on my list are all the cases he has sysop-spaminated in the last six months.
And what pennies question? --Midianian|T|T:S|C:RCS| 10:17, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
Your sample size is too small. There is a reason sample sizes are as large as possible: To negate and minimise the influence of outliers and anomalies in the data. You say that there is a general trend against Jon Pyre. Thats plain nonsense. our sample is far, far too small to even begin making assumptions about competing trends, especially since you are effectively comparing two trends, one composed of two units. Lets use maths for a comaprison here. Imagine a graph of y=x2 (A parabola). Take two points along that line, say, 0,0 and 2,4. If those are your only reference points, you get a very poor picture of how the line looks (In fact, its completely misleading, as you would assume the line continues on to -2,-4 and 4,8). The same is true for all such very tiny samples of data. They dont provide enough information to describe a trend. And you have fallen into that trap here. Oh, and you didnt source your data. Thats another black mark against you. However, since you are doing keep/spam comparisons, you should notice that in at least one case in your "data" you have me going for something with an even greater keep to spam ratio than Jon Pyres suggestions. Thats a bad move when trying to state what you are stating. Then theres the fact you left out another relevant variable in these removals. Specifically, the age of the suggestion. Older suggestions gather more votes, of all kinds. Its pretty clear from your table that the majority of suggestions lasted a long time before i noticed them and shut them down, as is evident by their large kill totals, which serve to water down the keep/other ratio upon which you base your data. Your statistical collection and analysis methods are deeply flawed. Fatally so. And here endeth the lesson in statistics. --The Grimch U! E! WAT! 10:22, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
I didn't say there is a general trend against Jon. I said that his suggestions are below the general trend, formed by the 8 other suggestions. Links added. And how can both of you miss the fact that I discounted the importance of practically any other variable but the total number of votes? And the Keep vs Spam ratio actually backs what I was saying, ie. you weren't abusing your powers. That's another thing both of you missed. --Midianian|T|T:S|C:RCS| 10:33, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
Whether you wanted to or not, you are attempting to compare two trends, and you lack sufficient data to accurately depict either of them. This is but the most obvious achilles heel of your entire case towards me being administrationally biased in this argument, and it has been pierced with a poison arrow. --The Grimch U! E! WAT! 10:42, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
This was not a case towards you. I was curious about the state of affairs, calculated the figures and came to the conclusion that the numbers don't really help Jon's case against you. How hard is that to get? You only reacted faster to the two cases than you do on average. Both of you are just presuming that I'm against you, when in fact I'm not. I defended my calculations, not Jon. --Midianian|T|T:S|C:RCS| 10:57, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
What is happening is you are assuming a bias in removal based on "trends" you see in statistics you have gathered, but because the sample size is so small, you cant accurately depect those trends and thus get anything even remotely resembling a meaningful answer. Those suggestions were merely removed earlier because i happened to be on the wiki at the time and noticed them on recent changes or when i occasionally popped by suggestions on my way to talk:suggestions, which i have been doing more often of late. I dont think its unreasonable for me to combat assertions of administrational bias like those you brought up at the top of this discussion thread. --The Grimch U! E! WAT! 11:05, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
It's not just the statistics and averages. Jon's suggestions have the lowest total amount of votes on the list. Both of Jon's have 12. Then next lowest has 13 (and I think this is a bit too low also), but the next after that has 19. The average is at 26. I was actually going to add after "The total number of votes is quite clearly against Grim" a sentence saying "but that could be that he just happens to be online at the time", but you being sensible adults (are you?) I thought you could come to that conclusion all by yourselves.
"From my point of view, it does seem that Grim has some bias against Jon, especially in that he removes Jon's suggestions much earlier than others', but abusing his powers? The rest of the numbers aren't that different. He's just a bit hasty when it comes to Jon. A friendly piece of advice; let the voting continue longer, you'll avoid drama." Emphasis added. I'm not presenting that as absolute fact, only an unsure opinion. --Midianian|T|T:S|C:RCS| 11:25, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
Youn need to state all that in your conclusion. Thats yet another part of your super sloppy analysis. Instead you are removing parts that undermine your opinion so as to make it seem as though the results support your opinion. Thats sloppy, if not outright misleading and dishonest. --The Grimch U! E! WAT! 05:40, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
"but that could be that he just happens to be online at the time" doesn't undermine my opinion. I said bias, that is, a tendency to act in favor or against. I didn't make any assumtions as to what causes the bias, be it malevolence (which you've assumed I meant) or just plain timing. If I've misunderstood the word, I apologize, I'm not a native speaker of english. --Midianian|T|T:S|C:RCS| 17:59, 6 January 2008 (UTC)


This is stupid. --Cyberbob DORIS CGR U! 00:23, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Thuingummywhut

Bias is not misconducatable. Now, i will admit i have something of a bias against him, but i dont go out to get him. My bias extends as far as being snitty with him in my spam/kill votes on his suggestions. It doesnt interfere with me making decisions on an administrative level (Though i will admit it does give me satisfaction on those occasions where the decision goes against him, if its a crime to feel good about yourself, im guilty). That said, Jon Pyre embodies something very unique and very irritating. He produces a large number of suggestions, and the average quality of those suggestions is abysmal. I and many others have tried to get him to institute som quality control on his own, but he seems to think the suggestions page is for brainstorming (Thats what the talk page is for you moron), and ignores the advice believing it isnt constructive. He is vexing on all levels. If he were to leave forever tomorrow we would be well rid of him. It actually saddens me to say that because if he had taken our advice and instituted some of those controls, and thought about how to work an idea, discarding the ones that wont work, then developing the good ones either in IRC with friends or on the suggestions talk page, he would be a rather neat contributer. Instead he just drops ideas on the page, without a care as to just how much of our time he wastes with those poorly formed and ill considered concepts aqs we are forced to kill and spam them as the garbage they are. Id really like to see a change from him, and if he does ill drop the animosity like a hot brick (Look out below!), but his refusal to take reasonable constructive advice... Well... face it. He's a Ferrous Cranus. --The Grimch U! E! WAT! 01:02, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

"Bias is not misconducatable. Now, i will admit i have something of a bias against him, but i dont go out to get him. My bias extends as far as being snitty with him in my spam/kill votes on his suggestions. It doesnt interfere with me making decisions on an administrative level (Though i will admit it does give me satisfaction on those occasions where the decision goes against him, if its a crime to feel good about yourself, im guilty)." THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT I WAS TRYING TO SAY! Thank you grim; that's what I was trying to say with my statements and quoting statistics. You were biased, but you didn't abuse your powers.  Nalikill  TALK  E!  W!  M!  USAI  02:21, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
I am not statistically biased. I am personally biased in my opinions and expressing them (like every siongle other person and sysop on this wiki, and the entire planet), but i do not let that bias creep into my duties. I do feel a warm twinge of satisfaction if the two agree on something though. --The Grimch U! E! WAT! 02:26, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

*Hits head on desk until skull cracks open. He then takes his keyboard, you know, the Apple one that's thin and metal, and stabs it through his brain* --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 02:19, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

You mean the thin, metal, and extraordinarily crappy one made by Apple? :). And I'm off to work. Later everyone.-- dǝǝɥs oʇ ɯɐds: sʎɐʍ1ɐ! 02:27, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
What? Lies. Apple actually did good on this keyboard. Although they did switch around some of the important keys, and it takes getting used to... but! It's quiet, low profile, light, durable and faster typing (I serious). --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 02:31, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

1185088631121.jpg --Cyberbob DORIS CGR U! 02:33, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I haven't had a chance to really process the entire above debate (wow, I did not expect this much discussion) but whether this belongs on misconduct I think is justified by this: "There is, however, an exception to this rule - excessive bullying, or attempts to treat the status of sysop as a badge of authority to force a sysop's wishes on the wiki may also come under misconduct. Any accusations of this should come with just as clear evidence, and for such an action to be declared misconduct, there should be a clear pattern of behavior across a considerable period of time." He's using his sysop badge of authority to end suggestions, and the behavior of a suggestor that he personally opposes. His opinion is not unanimous, heck, Kevan even dropped me a line of encouragement on my talk. Use of moderator abilities in this way I think is definitely favoring his owns viewpoint above the greater goal of promoting order on the wiki. That qualifies this for misconduct proceedings. --Jon Pyre 04:55, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I'm sure we're all familiar with that line of encouragement by now but I don't see how you can say he was using it as a badge of authority. He's not claiming he's better able to decide what is spam and what isn't because he's a Sysop, any of that he has done involving you has been do to his history as a very successful maker of suggestions, and for someone as disliked as Grim he is surprisingly successful in suggestions. Bullying I might be able to see you trying to make a point on that because Grim isn't the nicest person, but badge of authority is pretty much just you pulling at straws. As for Kevan's opinion, Admins are people too, I wish more people would realize that before treating anything Kevan says as a free pass to action or even using it as an excuse for why they are right, he knows what he meant and I doubt he meant for this. I do know that it's vague enough that it isn't exactly able to be interpreted as validating your suggestion that got spaminated. Kevan said he liked some of your stuff in the past, we already know that as you have mentioned you've gotten stuff implemented. That being said Grim has a point, a good one. You suggest far too many things and most of the things you suggest are of a similar theme with little variation beyond degree of voter fatigue. This is very reminisent of the drama you and some other users stirred up over your Wave Hello suggestion because it was dupe removed.--Karekmaps?! 05:41, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
A case you are lacking Jon. I dont even wear a sysop tag anymore to avoid looking like im a sysop when in arguments with people. I am not bullying you, indeed, i have on quite a few occasions of late, even before this case, tried to help you by pointing out a massive hole in your process and giving you information to fill that hole (See my talk page for examples. Im not telling you that i can do whatever i want because i am a sysop and you arent. Thats fucking retarded and goes against absolutely everything i believe in, and stand for. This is nothing but you bitching and moaning because the rule you wrote is biting you in the arse, and the person doing it is someone you personally dislike. If it had been vantar doing the removals, i dont see how you would be complaining. if it had been boxy, same thing. Karlsbad, no case. But its me. So i must obviously be nasty and bullying to you because im simply using an ability on the suggestions page to remove spam suggestions on your suggestions that i use on everyones suggestions equally. But no, it is your contrivance that because i do it to everyone equally, that i must be bullying you in a sysop manner. --The Grimch U! E! WAT! 05:48, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://wiki.urbandead.com//index.php?title=UDWiki_talk:Administration/Misconduct/Archive/Grim_s&oldid=1528593"