UDWiki:Administration/Misconduct

Shortcut:
A/M

This page is for the reporting of administrator (sysop) misconduct within the Urban Dead wiki. Sysops are trusted with a considerable number of powers, many of which have the capacity to be abused. In many circumstances, it is possible for a sysop to cause considerable havoc. As such, users are provided this page to report misconduct from the System Operators. For consistency and accountability, sysops also adhere to the guidelines listed here.

Guidelines for System Operator Misconduct Reporting

The charge of Administrative Misconduct is a grave charge indeed. If misconduct occurs, it is important that the rest of the sysop team be able to review the charges as necessary. Any charge of administrative misconduct must be backed up with evidence. The clearest evidence that can be provided for administrative misconduct is a clear discrepancy between the relevant action log (deletion, block, or protection log) and the archives of the relevant administration service page, and this is a minimum standard of evidence admitted in such a tribunal.

Misconduct is primarily related to specific Administrator Services, not standards of behavior. As such, situations including verbal attacks by sysops, while frowned upon, do not constitute misconduct. Sysops on a wiki are in theory supposed to have no more authority than a regular user - they merely have a greater scope of power. Personality conflicts between sysops and regular users should be treated just as a personality conflict between two regular users. If, in the course of such a conflict, a sysop abuses their administrative powers by banning a user, blocking or deleting a page without due process, that is misconduct, and should be reported to this page.

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.

All discussion of misconduct should occur on this page, not the talk page - any discussion on the talk page will be merged into this page once discovered. Once a misconduct case has been declared closed, a member of the sysop team will mete out the punishment (if deemed necessary), and then move the case to the Archive.

Administrative Abilities

For future reference, the following are sysop specific abilities (ie things that sysops can do that regular users cannot):

• Deletion (ie complete removal, as opposed to blanking) of pages (including Images and any other page-like construct on this wiki), through the delete tab on the top of any deletable construct.
• Undeletion (ie returning a page, complete with page history) of pages (including any other page-like construct on this wiki (Images are not included as deletion of an image is not undoable), through the undelete tab on the top of any undeletable construct
• Protection of pages (ie removing the ability of regular users to edit or move a particular page), through the protect tab on the top of any protectable construct.
• Moving of pages (ie changing a page complete with the page's history to a different namespace).
• Warning users reported in Vandal Banning.
• Banning of Users (ie removing the ability of a specific user to edit the wiki), through the Block User page.
• Editing of Protected pages by any means.
• Research IP activity using the CheckUser extension.
• (Bureaucrats Only) Promotion (providing the above abilities) of User to Sysop/Bureaucrat status.

If none of the above abilities were abused and the case doesn't apply for the exception mentioned above, then this is a case for UDWiki:Administration/Arbitration or UDWiki:Administration/Vandal Banning.

Example of Misconduct Proceedings

Sysop seems to have deleted Bad Page, but I can't find it in the Archives of either the Deletion or Speedy Deletion pages. The Logs show a deletion at 18:06, October 24th 2005 by a System Operator, but this does not seem to be backed up by a request for that deletion. I would like to know why this is the case -- Reporter 13:42, 28 Oct 2005 (BST)

The deletion was asked through my talk page. I give my Talk page as proof of this. -- Sysop 13:42, 28 Oct 2005 (BST)

You know the rules, Sysop. All deletion requests have to go through the Speedy Delete page. Next time, please inform the user where they should lodge the request. This is a clear violation, will you accept a one-day ban as punishment? -- Sysop2 13:42, 28 Oct 2005 (BST)

I'm not liking it, but I clearly broke the rules, I'll accept the ban. I'll certainly remember due process next time... Sysop 13:42, 28 Oct 2005 (BST)

As punishment for failing to follow due process, Sysop has been banned for a period of 24 hours. This will be moved to the Archive shortly. -- Sysop2 13:42, 28 Oct 2005 (BST)

Misconduct Cases Currently Under Consideration

User:A Helpful Little Gnome

Deleted United_Zombies_of_Malton.

As deletions are a sysop only power this is a misconduct rather than a vandalism case.

Gnome deleted UZM following a arbitration ruling by Cheese. As has been ruled approximately a thousand times in the past, arbitration cannot override established wiki processes. By following this ruling Gnome breaks from the established deletions process and summarily ignores those users who have voted keep on the (then) ongoing deletions case. Even though I noted this at the bottom of the case, he still decided to exert his authority as a sysop against the community.

This is an act of moderation.

Contrary to what Cheese states on the deletions page it was not a speedy deletion, a speedy deletion would have been illegal due to people voting keep, and Gnome's own edit summary on the deletion log clearly states he was deleting in accordance with the ruling.

Request ruling of misconduct, the undeletion of UZM and the restoration of the deletions vote to allow established process to continue. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 10:10, 30 September 2008 (BST)

The page creator has saved all he wanted to for re-use in line with the arbie's ruling and has asked for it to be deleted himself. There is absolutely no need to keep the page anymore and leaving it until the end of the due process would be almost as bueracratically petty as this case!--Honestmistake 10:42, 30 September 2008 (BST)

The page creator asked for a speedy delete. As a current deletion case was underway that had at least one keep, a speedy couldn't have happened. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 11:19, 30 September 2008 (BST)

Actually... the bureaucratic mess came about when an Arbitration was decided upon which overrode the wiki process. There was a MAJOR conflict right there, when Cheese said -- in spite of the page in question being at the time up for deletions voting -- that UZM would be deleted. IMNSHO he had no right to say that. And, I am unfortunately compelled to agree that AHLG, therefore, had no call to follow that Arby decision... And, all this bullcrap and red-tape clusterfarking has just resulted in more confusion, more ambiguity and more pointless drama.

Now, I'm not clear as to whether the page's author voting speedydelete automatically makes it go back to the speedydeletion queue. I was actually under the impression that it did... Which would mean Iscariot's premise for this Misconduct is mistaken. But I really don't know... hopefully someone with more experience and knowledge does know. --WanYao 12:46, 30 September 2008 (BST)

To illustrate what Wan and I are getting at here, if arbitration can circumvent wiki process, it would only take three users to break the entire wiki, two to engage in the case and one arbitrator. If that arbitrator's decisions would override anything else, he could promote/demote sysops, ban users, or (as here) delete any page on this wiki that they choose.

On the owner/speedy point. I was under the impression that only one case for deletion could be open at once. This would be common sense to stop the deletions pages being flooded. As soon as Zeug requests a move to speedy, all current votes attached to it would follow, and the keeps would bring it straight back to A/D. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 13:08, 30 September 2008 (BST)

If the author was the only person to edit it (includes minor junky spell-fix edits or whatever) then he can A/SD it at anytime regardless of other people's votes. If anyone else edited it (and i have a feeling jorm and co did and got them reverted) then once it's got a keep vote its gotta stay on A/D.--xoxo 13:40, 30 September 2008 (BST)

I had edits on that page J3D ;)

The whole point is, if there can only be one case open per page at one time in the deletion process, then those votes would follow. Speedy states that any keep vote stops a SD and moves the page back to the normal deletions queue. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 13:50, 30 September 2008 (BST)

NOT MISCONDUCT Iscariot - you are an idiot and a shit disturber. Stop making drama and go back to trolling Talk:Suggestions. I'm reposting what I posted on the Deletion page.

Seriously, what is wrong with you people? You all go "forum shopping" posting this on deletions and arbitration then complain when you get two conflicting results? What did you think was going to happen? Personally, I think the arbitration decision should stand over this deletion voting because both the author and the community had an equal opportunity to voice their concerns. Voting always runs the risk of meat/sock puppets while discussion and discourse are more fair. And if in this instance you all decide that the policy/procedure should trump the compromise and discussion of arbitration then you will be basically saying "We don't want to think for ourselves. We want to be slaves to policy." I know arby's is "broken", but it is the best system we have that tries to be fair and balanced. By saying that wiki procedure trumps a legitimate arbitration then we might as well post Arby's on this page next to UZM. --– Nubis 21:48, 29 September 2008 (BST)

I'd watch what I were saying there fucko. I do not troll the suggestions page. A troll is after eliciting an emotional reaction, I just want fucking morons to go away, I don't care to find out whether they cry or not. Also, at no point have I forum shopped or began a arbitration case about this issue until this item of misconduct occurred. So how's about you stop trying imply that I have some sort of presence in this whole affair as some overlord puppeteer and go and look at it objectively. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 15:40, 30 September 2008 (BST)

I'd be a little smarter when trying to make up insults, "fucko". Otherwise you're just going to get laughed at. :< --HAHAHA DISREGARD THAT, I SUCK COCKS 16:01, 30 September 2008 (BST)

Sorry, didn't realize you were a whiny little cunt and that you were sensitive about the T word. But let me get this straight, Wan posts the Deletion request, Jorm/MOB start an arbitration, and you just happen to be the one that is so butthurt by the injustice in the system that you are the one that brings misconduct charges up? Not buying it, drama queen. Also, if you were so dead set on the VOTE being the final say so why the fuck did you offer to arbitrate?

I offer to arbitrate. -- St. Iscariot GC PK WTE 21:36, 22 September 2008 (BST)

GO AWAY. --– Nubis ^NWO 16:42, 30 September 2008 (BST)

I fixed your indents there ;)

Does someone not understand irony? Zeug seemed to. What this decision effectively means that anything can happen from Arbitration, there was no deletion request made, but because the Arbitrator decided to stick that in his verdict, there is no response from any party. This kills the arbitration procedure, can you see any user agreeing when the arbitrator can decide to delete the pages in question? Everyone's going to refuse every single arbitrator, the system may have been damaged, but you've just broken it beyond repair. Well done there. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 18:19, 30 September 2008 (BST)

And let me add that 2 or 3 users can not "break" the wiki with arbitration unless the arbitrator they pick is a complete moron. The whole point of arbitration is to come to a sensible compromise. If these phantom 2 or 3 evil users that Iscariot is trying to protect us from tried something like this you can be sure that one of us evil sysops would abuse our powers and ban them. (AM I RITE? LOL) --– Nubis ^NWO 15:01, 30 September 2008 (BST)

"2 or 3 users can not "break" the wiki with arbitration unless the arbitrator they pick is a complete moron"...or unless the arbitrator that they get to select is in on it? Did you even think about that? What happens when The Dead decide to run this system you've just given your approval to delete the DHPD page without the DHPD even being involved?

And "one of us evil sysops would abuse our powers and ban them", yes, go ahead and espouse the fact that certain sysops see the voted policies and guidelines of this wiki to be purely optional, way to attempt to restore the community trust right there... -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 15:40, 30 September 2008 (BST)

This shows how little you understand the system. So, you are saying that if the Dead put the DHPD page up for deletion and got everyone to vote it deleted that you would rather that stood (the holy policy!) than if someone from the Dead and DHPD picked an AGREED UPON arbitrator and plead their cases? Because I'm curious what argument could be used to sway someone that BOTH SIDES would agree upon to completely negate one group over the other. Your knee jerk reactionary response of POLICY UBER ALLES is disturbing.

Your example is absurd, by the way. I guess you don't read talk pages much these days? If these two groups that "practically tore this place apart" can actually get along and joke on the wiki then maybe there is hope yet. Not to mention that not even the Dead could brute force a policy through or did you forget Kevan stepping in and vetoing the meat puppet policy? But no no, you continue running in fear, Chicken Little, that these mysterious evil users will destroy the wiki.

What really destroys the faith in the community is sysops that ignore common sense and power trip hiding behind policy. I know AHLG gets a lot of shit for not being a policy hardass (and sometimes being too soft of a touch) but at least he isn't afraid to consider that maybe feelings and intent matter more than vaguely worded red tape. --– Nubis ^NWO 16:42, 30 September 2008 (BST)

Who said DHPD had to be involved? That page didn't belong to Zeug, it wasn't in his namespace or a group, it was a community page. It was deleted even though I don't remember Jorm requesting it. The fact is that I can get two other people together with me and start deleting shit whenever I want through A/M, and you all don't seem concerned, because hey, you'll just 'abuse' your powers when it fucking suits you. The fact that there was over a dozen members of the community voting keep on a community page that was summarily dismissed based on the actions of a minority doesn't seem to concern anyone here. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 18:11, 30 September 2008 (BST)

Not Misconduct - Nubis, again, nails it on the head. Iscariot, please go and find something better to do with your time than spamming admin pages with petty, idiotic cases. If you think you could run the wiki better, then put your money where your mouth is or shut up. -- Cheese 17:01, 30 September 2008 (BST)

Yes, because A/PM isn't a popularity contest or anything.... I got over those when I left school. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 17:46, 30 September 2008 (BST)

I see this page has become as pointless and inconsistent as A/VB. Accordingly for the benefit of those users that actually give a shit, I present the relevant policy.

Let's look at the most important section shall we? "Moderators may only delete a page in one of three instances:" Emphasis mine. That qualifier seems quite definitive doesn't it? Let's look at to what it talks about:

'"1. A page has been listed on UDWiki:Moderation/Speedy Deletions, and that page is eligible for Speedy Deletion according to the current guidelines for Speedy Deletions. Before serving the request, moderators are expected to review the page to ensure its suitability for Speedy Deletion.

2. A page has been listed on UDWiki:Moderation/Deletions, and that page has been deemed eligible for Deletion by the wiki community, in compliance with the rules of the Deletions page.

3. A page has been created by a moderator in the User namespace as a subpage of the moderator's user page, no user other than the moderator has made substantial contributions to the page, and the page is not required for any significant reason. In this case, the moderator should make note of his or her deletion on UDWiki:Moderation/Speedy Deletions either before or after he or she has deleted the page.

4. When acting in accordance with approved policies."

It is inelible for number 1, it has at least one keep vote.

It was eligible for number 2, but only once two weeks were up and having been judged to be deleted by the community. This process had been begun but was incomplete when Gnome deleted the page.

It is ineligible for number 3, Zeug isn't a moderator (sysop) and wasn't in any user namespace.

It is ineligible for number 4, there is no arbitration policy.

So, there it is, policy clearly defied by a sysop, and other sysops backing them up. Trusted users....

Let's also remember that Arbitration binds only its participants, but that page was in no-one's namespace, making it community property. The lesson to be learnt here is that disputes between two users can now have far reaching consequences due to some power mad arbitrator. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 17:46, 30 September 2008 (BST)

I believe there is something of relevance that Iscariot should be made aware of: see the second bullet point where it says (my italics to denote a quotation):

"Moderators, as trusted users of the wiki, are given the right to make judgment calls and use their best discretion on a case-by-case basis. Should the exact wording of the policies run contrary to a moderator's best good-faith judgment and/or the spirit of the policies, the exact wording may be ignored."

I just wanted to point out that over-arching policy clause that allows any sysop to act outside of other policy if (essentially) acting in good-faith. --Funt Solo ^QT 18:03, 30 September 2008 (BST)

Less than 20 minutes before that 'get-out-of-everything-ever-free-card' came out? Damn, My bet was for at least an hour.... -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 18:06, 30 September 2008 (BST)

If you don't like it, you should know where you can try to get rid of it. --Midianian^{|T|T:S|C:RCS|} 18:15, 30 September 2008 (BST)

Wow.... this has gone waaay too far. I do agree that something is completely broken in a system where an Arbitration case can overrule wiki policy and process... But I do not agree with where this discussion has gone...

And I explained why I believed UZM was elegible for deletion about 30 billion fucking times... and how it was different than, say, putting the DHPD up for deletions.

But so many of you people just don't fucking seem to listen... It's not even about disagreeing -- it's about people not even fucking LISTENING....

And, Jorm's Arby case had NOTHING to do with me. Nothing at all. He did that on his own. Period. All the imputations being tossed about are bullshit.

This is just insane. --WanYao 19:49, 30 September 2008 (BST)

"This, this is madness!"

"This! Is! UD WIKI!!!!"

Yeah. I went there. Seriously though, what the fuck is up with all this shit? If there was a way to actually take over the wiki with three people and Arby's, don't you think I'd have tried it ages ago? It'd be funny as hell though...Actually, can I get two volunteers? You know you want to...-- dǝǝɥs oʇ ɯɐds: sʎɐʍ1ɐ! 22:41, 30 September 2008 (BST)

Pick me. I'm qualified. --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 22:43, 30 September 2008 (BST)

We already know you won't hesitate to pull the trigger on the old delete button! I, for one, welcome our new GNome overlords. --– Nubis ^NWO 02:01, 1 October 2008 (BST)

Alright, I need one more volunteer, and don't worry everyone, I'll take responsibility for any punishment we may or may not receive. :) -- dǝǝɥs oʇ ɯɐds: sʎɐʍ1ɐ! 23:03, 30 September 2008 (BST)

Count me in but I demand my share of the blame ;) --Honestmistake 11:39, 1 October 2008 (BST)

And my final word on this: Delete - Extinction in a popular vote situation? Goodbye page, so long, farewell! -- St. Iscariot GC PK WTE 20:58, 22 September 2008 (BST) A page that you (among many others) voted delete on was deleted?!?! Oh shock and horror the system works! But, no, please feel free to continue bitching about the fact the page was deleted. I know you will. --– Nubis ^NWO 02:12, 1 October 2008 (BST)

Not Misconduct - The deletions vote was almost up, and a line ball decision. The arbitration case had changed circumstances, and the page author had changed his vote to speedydelete. If the author wants it gone, meh -- boxy ^{talk • i} 04:08 1 October 2008 (BST)

Ruling

Ok, this has been quiet for the past 4 days so I'm going to say that this case is effectively closed. Gnome has been unanimously found to be not guilty of misconduct. Case Closed -- Cheese

User:Grim_s

For this edit -- removing the historical event nomination for User:RadioSurvivor -- where he cited the Policy for Historical Events.

In fact, the policy on Historical Events reads:

"Historical Events are very important in-game events that have made an impact on the way the game is played or otherwise contributed to the history of Malton."

The character of Michael Corsair, aka Uncle Zeddie, existed in and impacted Malton, in-game -- as well as via the metagame. One might argue that it was more meta- than in-game? That's actually highly debatable -- but quite irrelevant, even if it is the case. Most (possibly all?) historical events have had metagame elements, often very significantly, and this event was no different. Thus, it's only a matter of degree, not of kind.

Additonally, the character and his "broadcasts" (which took place in- and out-of-game) clearly "contributed to the history of Malton."

Furthermore:

"Within two weeks of a nomination, the Event must be approved by 2/3 of the voters, with a minimum of 15 voters for a nomination to pass. The only allowable votes are Yes and No."

(Apologies, I initially cited the wrong line. Corrected.)

Grim was in blatant violatation of this Policy by not allowing voting to continue, and allowing the community to decide on this nomination, for the stated 2 week period.

I request not only that Grim's sysop powers be removed -- as he clearly abused these powers, in contravention of very clear policy on this matter -- but that the Historical Event nomination be reinstated and voting be allowed to continue, as per the policy.

That is all. --WanYao 17:40, 28 September 2008 (BST)

BRACE FOR TEXT WALL CONTAINING MANY VULGARITIES AND GRAMMATICAL ERRORS --HAHAHA DISREGARD THAT, I SUCK COCKS 18:53, 28 September 2008 (BST)

Before this goes any further, I want to say a few things. I don't have a lot of time, so it might be terse.

Firstly, I want to apologise for my angry outbursts earlier when I first saw the removal of this nomination. Unfortunately, I think one can understand why I was so furious. I do not, however, take back my assertion that Grim made a very fundamentally bad and, policy-wise, dead wrong call. And, unfortunately, a "Misconductable" wrong call....

However... this also needs to be said, I think... I'm gonna "out" Grim... Ya know what? Grim is a good guy. And I actually like and respect Grim. Yeah... it's true. Moreover, I am convinced that Grim really does have the interests of the wiki and the community at heart in all he does.

That being said, though... I think there is problem. And I think that problem is, at least partially, that Grim is not really in touch with the UD player-community. And that community includes people who really only play in-game, and/or those who use the wiki on vary levels, and/or those who use forums, and/or IRC, and/or -- those for whom part of this "community" revolves around a very popular and influential metagame video-blog...

This, combined with an unfortunate tendency at times towards heavy-handedness and unilateralism... And we have a bit of a problem... Which has led us here, to this Misconduct case.

Anyway... I'm not here to grind an axe. I'm not here to call names and sling mud. I've explained already why I am here. It's my (possibly naive) hope that the majority of the community will also feel and act similarly. Thanks. --WanYao 21:06, 28 September 2008 (BST)

Sorry Wannie, but you know as well as anyone else that Grim does NOT permit challenges to His Authority. Expect to be ravaged at full force. --HAHAHA DISREGARD THAT, I SUCK COCKS 21:15, 28 September 2008 (BST)

Misconduct I was torn initially on whether this was misconduct or simply vandalism. It crosses the line where he sites "Policy" and then incites others to "Bitch and Moan", indicating that he is standing behind his perceived authority as a sysop and bureaucrat. However, as I fully expect a flambastic response citing a previous history between Grim and myself, I would expect other sysops to take the time to fully evaluate the situation before ruling either direction. Conndraka^{mod TAZM CFT} 21:33, 28 September 2008 (BST)

To answer points bellow... I heard Uncle Zeddy a number of times... IN GAME... I even used an Alt to try and hunt him down at one point... all within game, as I don't participate in boards that had any mention of uncle Zeddy except for the wiki and the game itself, the nomination obviously DOES have something to do with the game as Wan says on the nomination page. Grim's opinion (regardless of popularity) is wrong, and when you are wrong sometimes you are just wrong and trying to prove (or disprove) it is merely a semantic exercise in futility. Conndraka^{mod TAZM CFT} 02:50, 29 September 2008 (BST)

Misconduct Here's the deal. There was no reason to remove that nomination. It wasn't like putting deletions up for deletion or part of some edit war or even that ridiculous of a nomination. (I think Uncle Zeddie deserves something like that) so there was no action "for the best interests of the community." He removed it because he didn't like it. Now, a normal user would have just voted NO and bitched about it (which is what he should have done). If a normal user had removed it they would be vandal escalated and the nomination restored. By removing the nomination entirely (and citing "policy" to justify his actions) that is an abuse of his perceived authority. True there were no sysop "powers" involved, but Misconduct isn't just misusing the ban/delete/protect tabs. It's abusing the authority given by the community to further your own personal agenda. What makes this case especially deplorable is the high and mighty attitude that Grim has. He tries (and usually succeeds) in being very impartial if not a hard ass. This time he was very wrong. What makes me jump on the Misconduct wagon is that Grim wouldn't have "backed down" and put it back up. He was rather insulting by putting up the "bitch about it here" section too. Now while this is hardly demotion worthy it really should make people want to reform the Misconduct system and the Demotion system. Here is a serious abuse of authority that if deemed Misconduct will mean nothing on his record and not count toward any serious punishment. So what's the real point of any Misconduct cases until you (the community) make it mean something? Of course, by the same token I am not going to vote Not Misconduct and make it seem as though I condone these actions.--– Nubis ^NWO 01:19, 29 September 2008 (BST)

It was an external event. A single character did exist in game, but the majority, the overwhelming majority of the event was on third party websites. Policy clearly states it must be in game, and a person wandering around broadcasting, if that ever happened (And ive seen nothing to suggest that ever happened, or that anything that might have happened in game was actually done by this individual). Thus i removed the nomination. Anyone can do that, the fact that i happen to be a sysop is irrelevant. The complaints section was just that, for complaints so you had a coherent place to bitch and moan, and discuss matters. All this is is an attempt to force through an event that doesnt meet policy into a meaningless category. If you want to add it, feel free to change policy on the issue to make it fit this nomination. Until then, shut up.

I did not edit any protected pages. I did not use any administrative abilities. I simply removed it for failing to meet policy. Anyone could have done what i did. Yes i added the title sysop (Because thats what i am), but anyone can remove a nomination if it fails to met the rules. Whats interesting is that no one has shown how i was wrong, just said i was. Im just sufffering here because the people want something included that doesnt actually meet the rules, and are more than willing to crucify me, a less than popular individual, to get it. If you want to change policy, i will support it, and i would even vote for it under new policy, but policy as it stands currently does not allow it. No matter how much you bitch and moan, no matter how much you complain and try to crucify me, no matter what you do, unless you can demonstrate that it was an in game event, significantly so, i wont back down on this issue. If you can do that, i would gladly do so. However, you didnt even bother trying to discuss matters, so why should i? If you want to accuse me of something, feel free to accuse me of vandalism, but this sure isnt misconduct. --The Grimch ^{U! E!} 02:23, 29 September 2008 (BST)

I'd like to submit if I may a proto-second-case against him for having gone and removed the stuff again despite both the existence of this case and the rulings of Misconduct already tendered by Nubis and Conndraka. --HAHAHA DISREGARD THAT, I SUCK COCKS 02:13, 29 September 2008 (BST)

I hadnt seen this case at that point. Ive stopped touching it until this matter is resolved. --The Grimch ^{U! E!} 02:23, 29 September 2008 (BST)

Okey dokey. --HAHAHA DISREGARD THAT, I SUCK COCKS 02:32, 29 September 2008 (BST)

I'm sorry... but I have already explained my reasoning. Now, one is free to disagree with me. That's fine. But my reasoning can be found in the nomination itself, and my comments on a couple of votes -- as well as above, in this misconduct case. And I happen to disagree with Grim that this did not also have an in-game impact. Again, I've explained my reasons for that... And I don't see why I should have to repeat myself. --WanYao 02:38, 29 September 2008 (BST)

Im no longer going to mount any form of defense here. Facts are no match for for Nubis's amazing supernatural mind reading powers and their ability to see things that i dont even recall thinking. I am no match for people who wish to assert something is true because it suiots their purposes. If you can provide an iwitness or screenshot of one of the broadcasts, ill cheerfully admit i was wrong on the matter and there it would have ended. This went way too far however. And asking for my demotion on a first offense? After how many years was it as a sysop? Two and a half? Absurd, but pretty much certain to happen because i made a call that may have been wrong, and was certainly unpopular. There was no attempt at discussion after i had done the removal. No attempt at rational discourse regarding this matter (I am partly to blame here for doing it unilaterally, but again, as i believed it was outside the rules on the matter, you know the rules that determine what can go up for voting in the first place, hopefully someone can see where this came from, though i doubt anyone will make the effort). Let me get one thing out. I enjoyed what he did. I found them funny. Saying that i removed them because i hate themn, i hate zeddie, and i hate fun is about as valid as claiming that the sky is bright red with pink blotchy polka dots at all times everywhere on the earth. In any case, do whatever the hell you like. This isnt going to be misconduct because i was wrong (Even if it turns out i am), but because people are so unhappy with what i did and refused to do the most basic thing in events where there are disagreements: Work it out rationally before resorting to litigation. If anything, id ask that this case be put on hold for a month so everyone can cool off and rule rationally insetead of in the heat of the moment. Not going to happen though i guess. --The Grimch ^{U! E!} 03:09, 29 September 2008 (BST)

Actually... as the one who brought this Misconduct case... I'm perfectly okay with a "cooling off period". I think that might be a good idea. A month might not be necessary: 2 weeks might be enough. But I'll not object to 30 days, it's no skin off my nose, either way. --WanYao 03:24, 29 September 2008 (BST)

Grim i confess to not reading the entire wall of text, but in the bits i did read there was no defence as to why you couldn't simply vote no and bitch, as Nubis suggested. Any reason for this? Because this misconduct case has NOTHING to do with whether or not Radio Survivor deserves historical event or not and i'm sure you recognise that.--xoxo 08:35, 29 September 2008 (BST)

Yes, it should be about misuse of mod powers... which sysop only ability is Grim supposed to have abused? As far as I can see, no-one has been given any special rights to remove "ineligible" historical votes, making this vandal banning material (if done in bad faith), not misconduct -- boxy ^{talk • i} 13:36 29 September 2008 (BST)

Boxy, you have a point and this could probably be handled on A/VB except Grim himself has said that Misconduct cases posted must stand. I bitched about this when someone tried to misconduct him for just posting a comment they didn't like. So he's stuck here in Misconduct and has to face what comes up. I tried to warn you all...

And to GRIM- WHAT? Why should any misconduct case against you get "a cooling off period"? Was there one when you brought a case against Karek for accidentally locking the A/VB page? (Did you try to talk it out before you rushed off to litigation?) Was there one for the case against me when I sarcastically added The Dead as a Pro Survivor group to DH? Did anyone try saying to me maybe I shouldn't do that? Here you go abusing your authority and expecting special treatment that you wouldn't even dream of giving others, but don't mind me I must just be using my psychic powers again.

Why are you saying that there should be an iwitness screenshot for Radio Survivor? Please link any other event that was forced to provide screen shots before VOTING could even be started on them. If you liked RS as much as you said then why not leave the nomination? Why not offer to make him a "special group" nomination if you are so dead set on what counts as an event?--– Nubis ^NWO 13:42, 29 September 2008 (BST)

If this 'cooling off period' happens, will it set precedent? Can I request a 'cooling off period' to any A/VB case against me? -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 14:32, 29 September 2008 (BST)

I don't know... It's just an idea... What I do know is that I was FURIOUS when I saw Grim's unilateral removal of the nomination. Which action, unfortunately, falls under what Nubis described: "Misconduct isn't just misusing the ban/delete/protect tabs. It's abusing the authority given by the community to further your own personal agenda". I'm not claiming to read anyone's mind... but his unilateralism, and the citing of policy (imnsho incorrectly) was the reason for my anger -- as well as for bringing this to misconduct. I do regret the anger, but I don't disown it, either....

That being said, I retract my "calls for Grim's resignation"... That schtick was bullshit on my part... As for everything else, well, it's all out there now and the community will have to try to figure it out.

This debacle is, as the saying sorta goes, why we shouldn't do nice things (i.e. put RadioSurvivor up for Historical)? ::le sigh:: --WanYao 18:11, 29 September 2008 (BST)

Misconduct - For the same reasons as Nubis and Conn up there ^. There was no justifiable reason to remove that vote. True it was an external event, but it had an impact nonetheless. The community deserves to have it's opinion. And if they want to vote for it, who are we to stop them? We are sysops not moderators. -- Cheese 20:00, 29 September 2008 (BST)

So you agree that its an external event, and thus ineligable under policy, yet you still move to convict based on... what? It was an external event, as you yourself said. Policy dictates that events be in game events (I am not opposed to changing policy, FYI), not external events. But i somehow have no right to remove it (Except, of course, for the fact i was removing it for violating approved policy). Could you at least try to look like your position is internally consistent? You are a fucking disgrace. Convicting a person of misconduct for... acting within policy! (By your own admission) --The Grimch ^{U! E!} 04:57, 30 September 2008 (BST)

Nitpicking at Cheese's decision won't change his mind or make you seem like an innocent victim. You notice that even though Cheese may think it wasn't an ingame event that he didn't remove the nomination? Did you pick up on that? Are you going to Misconduct him and the rest of us for "not following policy" through inaction? We are still trying to figure out why you thought it was so detrimental to the community to just let it run its' course and see what the users voted. --– Nubis ^NWO 07:29, 30 September 2008 (BST)

Im no longer going to mount any form of defense here. You should watch statements like this when you return and bitch at people for not having "internal consistency" Just sayin'--– Nubis ^NWO 07:35, 30 September 2008 (BST)

Many of the events that have made the list have both internal and external components, while there certainly is an argument that Radio Survivor was not sufficiently in game, you should have expressed your opinion the same as any other user would have, voting no. The fact that there is even this discussion demonstrates the ambiguity surrounding the events worthiness. It's not clear cut, so don't make it out like it is.--xoxo 05:06, 30 September 2008 (BST)

Radio Survivor had an in-game presence/existence, and an in-game impact. One such thing was the in-game man-hunt. What the fuck is so "ambiguous" about that??? --WanYao 05:17, 30 September 2008 (BST) And that's part of the problem. I explained all this in my nomination and in some comments... This is what happens when you try to do something nice in the UD "community"? --WanYao 05:18, 30 September 2008 (BST)

Yes it had an in-game impact, the ambiguity comes from whether or not that impact alone was sufficient for it to be counted as historically significant. Who tried to do something nice for the UD community and what was it? --xoxo 05:21, 30 September 2008 (BST)

I thought it would be way cool to nominate Uncle Zeddie and let the community honour his contributions to the history of Malton... I honestly thought it would be a no-fucking-brainer, and I really didn't think it'd cause all this fucking drama. Like I said, that's why you don't do nice things...

I admit, I thought long and hard about exactly what kind of nomination Radio Survivor deserved. And I came to the conclusion that it was an event. I realised full-well that I was stretching the boundaries of the "traditional" definition of an event -- and I said so. However, that being said, I stretched them... I didn't go outside them or break them. Because it did exist in-game... it affected many different sururbs and lots of players... it inspired a man-hunt participated in by every fucking PKer worth his salt in the game... there was the Radio Survivor Street team... the Dead have admitted to hunting for him... it precipited a change, even if that change was "cultural". It was a fucking event. Even if it wasn't an event as we've typically recognised them before now, that doesn't mean the definition doesn't still apply. It does. --WanYao 08:15, 30 September 2008 (BST)

Wan, I think it would have been easier nominating him as a group. There is no minimum membership listed in the HOLY POLICY on the group page.--– Nubis ^NWO 15:07, 30 September 2008 (BST)

Not misconduct - no one has shown which sysops only power was abused here, and it wasn't enforced as a "moderation decision". Just another example of Grim being a dick (like so many others) -- boxy ^{talk • i} 04:04 1 October 2008 (BST)

Try this one: 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. He is a Crat. His actions carry the weight of that no matter how much he wants to pretend that he is a regular user. Again, it isn't just about the delete/ban/protect buttons.--– Nubis ^NWO 08:38, 4 October 2008 (BST)

Header to break discussion into managable chunks

OK, im back breifly to deal with this issue. I feel i need to point out this line from the top of the page:
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.
One incident that, even if it was what you say it was (Which it wasnt) isnt a clear pattern of behaviour. As such this cannot be ruled misconduct, unless you want to tell me which specific sysop ability i abused (Which will be quite entertaining, i must say). The ONLY reason this has gotten like this is because what i did was unpopular, and i also happen to be such. In any case, ruling misconduct with no demonstration of either clear pattern of abuse of simulated authority, or abuse of actual abilities is in and of itself misconduct on your parts, though if i bring any cases, you will all just go free, because one of the most fundamental ways this system is broken is that sysops get to decide what is and what is not legal, and can do this to crucify anyone they dont like.
If you want to treat this as an administrative action, i have done nothing that wasnt sanctioned by the guidelines. No, there is no specific policy for removals. But guess what, in A/G there is a bullet point under general conduct that specifically states:
System operators are also given the authority to make decisions regarding actions for which there is no governing policy in place. For example, should a particular action for which there is no policy be disputed, system operators may exercise their best judgment to allow or deny it.
Disagreement is no grounds for misconduct though. Thats just fucking petty. --The Grimch ^{U! E!} 00:05, 3 October 2008 (BST)

Cry me a river Grim. You don't have to look any farther than my own misconduct "trials" some even brought by you, where I was sanctioned for edits that anyone could have done...but because I was a sysop it was perceived as an abuse of authority. And the 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. defense didn't work for me either... and popular or not if you do something wrong, its still wrong. even after a cooling off period. Conndraka^{mod TAZM CFT} 02:25, 3 October 2008 (BST)

What an outright fabrication on your part. I have never so much as commented on a misconduct case regarding you, let alone created one. Proof is in the pudding as they say. No, i have been critical of you, but i havent taken you to misconduct over anything. Perhaps you are thinking of A/VB, but i certainly cant recall any incident there off the top of my head. Also, upon further reading, even more of your claim is false. From top to bottom all your cases revolve around the use, or misuse, of administrative abilities. In order, from top to bottom: Undeletion, Banning, Banning, Warning, Deletion, Protection, Banning. Given there have been a grand total of seven cases against you, i think this is rather clear. But dont just take my word for it. Go read the archive yourself. --The Grimch ^{U! E!} 02:51, 3 October 2008 (BST)

You are right Grim, I'm sorry. Its not a fabrication, just a mistake on my part. I confused you with The General. My Bad... but its nice to see you so friendly in your response. Conndraka^{mod TAZM CFT} 03:26, 3 October 2008 (BST)

Conn, maybe you were thinking of that lovely "What Sysops you trust?" page. The one where he railed on the sysops he didn't like and invited the users to join in on the gang bang. Personally, I've always thought Hagnat was Grim's whipping boy, not you so much. --– Nubis ^NWO 08:38, 4 October 2008 (BST)

This case is about vandalism, at best, and given i was only trying to uphold the policies of this wiki as they dictated terms on the matter, and i ceased doing anything after spotting this case, its quite obviously good faith. Accusing me of misconduct for what is, at best, an edit conflict is petty and vindictive, and just goes to show just how shallow and unfit many sysops on this wiki are. Your ruling was especially poor in that you explicitely mentioned that the reason you went misconduct instead of vandalism was my "attitude" on the matter, not anything i did that required or utilised administrative abilities. A persons attitude is irrelevant to how things are ruled in misconduct. It is their actions that determine the validity of charges, not how they act (Unless the case is about bullying or such). I know im a dick, its been pointed out a great number of times, but that doesnt turn this case into misconduct. I will not apologise for my general conduct, because i have nothing to apologise for. You dont like my attitude? I dont like yours either, but you dont see me releasing a stream of bile on misconduct without due cause just to get people i dont like (Of course, that really depends on how you look at the cases i have brought, which are mostly procedural. I just have to say that i never brought any thinking "Now im gonna get im!" or "BWAHAHAAHAHAHA!" or anything of that vein.) --The Grimch ^{U! E!} 03:42, 3 October 2008 (BST)

A persons attitude is irrelevant to how things are ruled in misconduct. I disagree I will not apologise for my general conduct I beleive (IMHO obviously take it for what its worth) That General Conduct is an Integral part of what we do, and when we act like asses, especially in our roles as sysops it looks poorly on the position of sysop not just on "Grim" or "Conn". Ergo when we act in a way that is inappropriate general conduct, it is by definition Misconduct. And Yes I realize this makes me almost as guilty as you, and I will readilly face that case if its brought against me. Obviously the Wiki in general does not have a "good conduct mandate", but I do beleive that we as sysops should be held to a higher standard (of professionalism if nothing else). Conndraka^{mod TAZM CFT} 03:58, 3 October 2008 (BST)

Being a dick has never been considered vandalism before, let alone misconduct. This is plainly ridiculous. There is no policy dictating standards of behaviour except with regards to the use of administrative abilities. Unless i have breached one of those guidelines, it is illegal, under the rules of this wiki, to rule misconduct. To paraphrase your position: "I dont like how you behave, so misconduct" This is just patently absurd. --The Grimch ^{U! E!} 04:37, 3 October 2008 (BST)

I think people are getting more than a little tired of your antics. Have you ever considered not being a dick, just to shake things up? --HAHAHA DISREGARD THAT, I SUCK COCKS 04:49, 3 October 2008 (BST)

If being a dick were a crime, you would have been flushed long ago. --The Grimch ^{U! E!} 04:52, 3 October 2008 (BST)

You didn't answer my question. I'm not a sysop. --HAHAHA DISREGARD THAT, I SUCK COCKS 04:54, 3 October 2008 (BST)

I feel no need to answer your questions, and you were once, and every bit as much a dick as you are now. In any case, on the subject of not liking my attitude, from this very page, up the top, under guidelines for misconduct reporting is this little gem: Personality conflicts between sysops and regular users should be treated just as a personality conflict between two regular users.. Unless i abuse my abilities in a conflict of personalities, its not misconduct. Unfortunately, in this clash of personalities between myself and the rest of you, you are the bunch that are abusing your abilities, by ruling misconduct based of a personality conflict with myself when i was acting within policies as written and intended for the simple reason that you dislike the decision that those policies demanded. --The Grimch ^{U! E!} 05:02, 3 October 2008 (BST)

ASPIE NERDRAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAGE EVERYBODY HIT THE DECK --HAHAHA DISREGARD THAT, I SUCK COCKS 05:08, 3 October 2008 (BST)

I was going to stat out of this but what the hell.... In the eyes of many users (particularly new ones) a sysop IS a Mod and challenging their actions is wrong/pointless. After all if they got voted into the posotion it was surely because thay are know the rules and are trusted to implement them? Sadly this is obviously not always the case as rules are often vague or non-existent and many actions taken by a Sysop are not "sysop" actions anyway, but those that can be taken by anyone (such as this case) In other words problems arises because its not always clear what is and is not a sysop action and (because names define function) any action taken by a known Sysop is a "Sysop action" because it was taken by a Sysop. If you throw into the mix a personality like Grims (and the reputation that goes with it) you are always going to get cases like this. Grim takes an unpopular but perfectly "legal" action and many don't call him on it because they know he knows the rules and is very very careful not to break them and because they also know that his debating skills are aggressive and well honed. It's obvious that there is a problem but its just as obvious that there is no solution... Grim has become his own "badge of authority" and he can and does use that in every issue he becomes involved in. Basically it boils down to this: He is right that this is not misconduct but he is so far from being good conduct that it long since stopped being funny.--Honestmistake 09:47, 3 October 2008 (BST)

Actually, almost all of my edits since late July (Thats as far back as i cared to skim my contribs) have been specifically administrative (Few, if any have had any specific issue taken with them, except Izumi, whom i was rooting out and banning), and i havent really been involved in community issues. So me having a bad attitude is more historical rather than recent because i simply have not posted much in the last couple of months. All admit i could have phrased some stuff better in my action here, but its pretty damned common for people on this wiki to call anything they disagree with whining. Check conndraka's opening response in the tree above for an even more recent example. He isnt being taken to task over it, so why should i? Ill admit i have a caustic abrasive attitude, but there are some very good reasons for that attitude, and a good number of people who have cared enough or just plain been bothered enough to get to know me know those reasons. --The Grimch ^{U! E!} 10:56, 3 October 2008 (BST)

Don't blame your going off your meds for your behaviour, Grim. Ritalin isn't that hard to find, surely? --HAHAHA DISREGARD THAT, I SUCK COCKS 16:10, 3 October 2008 (BST)

Grim, I hate to point out the obvious because it will be held against me and I think it is insulting to those that get it, but you don't seem to be among them. You are here in this situation because of your own actions and arrogance and not some USER CONSPIRACY against you. This is my big "I told you so" and I hate having to say it. Misconduct should not be the place for vandal cases against sysops/Crats. I said that last time you were here when someone complained about your edits on their talk page, but you wouldn't let me remove the case saying that all cases including ones that don't involve sysop actions have to be heard here if they are posted here. I said we need another disposition on Misconduct cases: Unsubstantiated. I said that here we only have two choices: Not Misconduct (meaning we condone the action) and Misconduct (meaning we disagree with the action). And again, I strongly disagree with your action for all the reasons I stated before and I do see them as "sysop/crat actions" under the attempts to treat the status of sysop as a badge of authority to force a sysop's wishes on the wiki clause. Now maybe someone will listen to me that the Misconduct policies need a tweak. As someone told Karek in your case against him "just take the Misconduct decision and move on". --– Nubis ^NWO 08:59, 4 October 2008 (BST)

A ruling of not misconduct does not mean you condone the action, only that you disagree that the action was an abuse of sysop privileges in some way. Unsubstantiated misconduct cases should always be ruled 'not misconduct' -- boxy ^{talk • i} 09:06 4 October 2008 (BST)

Unfortunately you're outnumbered by a good margin. Is this case going to do what I suspect it is, which is be awkwardly ignored by people until it is archived - letting Grim get away without punishment? --HAHAHA DISREGARD THAT, I SUCK COCKS 09:34, 4 October 2008 (BST)

As boxy said, not misconduct doesnt mean you condone the action, merely that the action wasnt administrator misconduct. I have in the past, myself ruled not misconduct and forwarded a case to A/VB. Amazing did it himself on my first misconduct case after it was soundly ruled not misconduct. He lost there too, because it was a stupid case. But ruling misconduct when it isnt misconduct just to teach a person a lesson is fucking petty and is in and of itself an abuse of the system, and a gross violation of your responsibilities as a sysop. Ruling on a misconduct case is not an agree with/disagree with matter. Its a "Was this action an abuse of administrator abilities as dictated by existing policy at the time of the incident? (Minor exceptions as detailed at the top of this page for excessive bullying and the other matter i touched on earlier)" A lot of people, yourself included, have completely lost sight of the fact that administrators are bound by rules, not the whims and consent of their fellows. Think about it for a minute: You are advocating a position that, if taken to an extreme, would mean you could legitimately rule misconduct on a case where an administrator has performed an action you merely disagree with. Its preposterous, but it does scale that way, especially with the way you and others are weighing in on this case (Conn and Cheese specifically). --The Grimch ^{U! E!} 10:02, 4 October 2008 (BST)

This is so lame. I was happy when he deleted the fucking nomination. D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 11:27, 4 October 2008 (BST)

Whoever said opposites attract? --HAHAHA DISREGARD THAT, I SUCK COCKS 11:53, 4 October 2008 (BST)

Please refrain from trolling on this page, as you have been doing for some time now. --The Grimch ^{U! E!} 11:55, 4 October 2008 (BST)

If anyone here is being disruptive, it's you and your gigantic walls of text. Nice officious tone, by the by. --HAHAHA DISREGARD THAT, I SUCK COCKS 13:13, 4 October 2008 (BST)

Also - how did you put it? "If being a dick is a crime you yourself would have been flushed long ago"? Don't be a hypocrite, Grim. --HAHAHA DISREGARD THAT, I SUCK COCKS 13:15, 4 October 2008 (BST)

Its only hypocricy if i claim that i am not a dick, and i have been, quite obviously so. Why would i bother trying to deny that. In any case, none of your comments in this case have been of a non trolling nature. In any case, as for my "Walls of text" as you put them. Other posters have presented similiarly sized chunks of text, used in the same manner as i have: To make detailed and comprehensive explainations or points. If you dont like to read them, you may feel free to not read this page. Otherwise, please cease your attempts at disruption. --The Grimch ^{U! E!} 13:23, 4 October 2008 (BST)

You misunderstand the point I was making about hypocrisy. Oh well; I can't really be bothered to explain it to you. --HAHAHA DISREGARD THAT, I SUCK COCKS 13:30, 4 October 2008 (BST)

Defeated cancerous troll is defeated. And cancerous. D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 04:22, 5 October 2008 (BST)

nou --HAHAHA DISREGARD THAT, I SUCK COCKS 04:26, 5 October 2008 (BST)

OK, a week ago i asked for a single iwitness or screenshot to be provided to prove the claim it was an in game event. Of course, i was being ludicrously generous here, as a single image proves nothing without a fair few freinds to back it up. And if they were as funny as claimed, there would be a few iwitnesses out there. Im not saying that they dont exist anywhere, mind you. Im just saying that the fact no one has decided to bring them up, especially when i have explicitely mentioned that i would back down on that matter and admit i am wrong (If i am indeed wrong) if it was done is quite suspicious.

In any event, the fact of the matter is that existing policy regarding the nomination and approval of historical events explicitely states that such events have to be in game events. Relevant text from policy below:

Historical Events are very important in-game events that have made an impact on the way the game is played or otherwise contributed to the history of Malton.

My bold. No one has stepped up to the plate to explain how a personal blog, regardless of how popular it is, or how much people liked it (I liked it myself, quite amusing) constitutes an in game event. There is no evidence that this caused anything significant in game above the standard background happenings dictated by internet trends and memes. I have been extraordinarily lenient in my standards for proof on this point, requesting but a single screenshot of a transmission.

In this light, my decision to remove the nomination is completely justified by the existing policy, as it quite simply did not apply. Even if i am wrong, and someone brings up evidence to show that it was an in game event, then it still doesnt invalidate my decision, which was correct based on the facts available at the time, and upon a valid and understandable interpretation of the policy on its first enforcement (We have no precident regarding how its to be enforced, probably because a lot of people dont even bother to read it or use the page). This alone kills the blanket assertion that i was using my position and/or abilities to force my will on the community (It was not my will, but the will of the community itself that cared to vote on that policy, a policy i upheld)

Furthermore, the assertion, completely baseless i might add, that i was abusing my status as a sysop of this wiki to force my way on the community is laughable. For starters, i did not use any of my abilities in the removal. I simply edited the pages and dumped the nomination in the appropriate archive. Anyone could have moved them back at any time. In fact one person did.

As for my opening in the section i created to discuss the removal, can anyone deny the fact that whenever an action is taken thats controversial, most, if not all of the dissent is barely comprehensable itching? Can anyone deny that what was posted in that section more than merited that description? It was a gaggle of enraged and irrational posters who never once tried to do anything to prove their case.

They didnt even bother. Instead, the ringleader came here and started a case against me which should never have been created. This should have gone to A/VB, not misconduct, and even there this case should rightly fail because i was, as i have explained above, merely attempting to follow policy as voted on by the members of this wiki.

Even if you disagree with the decision i made, the following facts are all true:

1. Policy, as written, states specifies in game events only.
2. That policy had never been tested, until now.
3. My interpretation of that policy was a valid, even if you disagree with my interpretation.
4. Disgreement on interpretation has never been misconductable, especially when there are no precidents set on a matter.
5. A sysops attitude, good or bad, does not factor into a misconduct case, as such cases refer to actions taken, not highly subjective impressions of a persons attitude.
6. None of my abilities as a sysop were utilised.
7. Furthermore, for any misconduct to be decided based on forcing wishes on the community by using status as a badge of authority, or bullying, a clear pattern of behaviour needs to be shown over a considerable period of time. This means more than one instance. More than two. Presumably four or five. Given my very public stance on sysops being janitors, not rulers, you will be hard pressed to find any such events, let alone enough to establish a clear pattern of behaviour. For your convenience, the specific section from the top of this page regarding this matter:
   
   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.

In line with all these points, as well as others i may have missed restating here, what i have done does not constitute misconduct. Those of you who have ruled such are doing so for the most ridiculous of reasons. Your motives are as transparent as vacuum, though i do not feel the need, nor desire, to drag this into a shit flinging contest. --The Grimch ^{U! E!} 15:30, 5 October 2008 (BST)

I could debate each point, but it comes down to this, There is a very real pattern of behavior, an admitted one even.. You are a self admitted "Dick". Unfortunately as a Bureaucrat and Sysop you do not get the luxury of being a Dick in all cases. And when you act like a Dick, its not just Grim acting like a Dick..its someone with perceived authority acting like a Dick, which in turn means that you are using the perceived authority as club while being a Dick. Sorry but thats the way it is. Conndraka^{mod TAZM CFT} 19:07, 5 October 2008 (BST)

Misconduct - Grims last wall of text, forcing his views on the subject into Misconduct, shows that he is indeed playing on his position as sysop to force his views on the community -- boxy ^{talk • i} 15:55 5 October 2008 (BST)

OK, but is anyone planning to actually do anything about it? Or - as I asked above but nobody responded to - is everyone going to sit around on their hands while the case gradually drifts more and more into irrelevance until it is eventually archived? --HAHAHA DISREGARD THAT, I SUCK COCKS 15:59, 5 October 2008 (BST)

Form an internet mob?-- dǝǝɥs oʇ ɯɐds: sʎɐʍ1ɐ! 16:16, 5 October 2008 (BST)

Thank you boxy for confirming my suspicions: That i am not allowed to defend myself at all or voice an opinion. Ever. That im not allowed to argue my case as a defendant. Not that it matters anymore, but how, exactly, am i forcing my will on the community? --The Grimch ^{U! E!} 16:28, 5 October 2008 (BST)

Its simple Grim...Nearly everyone who voted for the Historical status including the several sysops who voted for the position recognized it as an in Game event, and you should have differed to the judgment of others in this situation. even I am not so arrogant to think that I am aware of all things that happen in Malton, but you know what if more than a couple of people say it was Im going to give them the benifit of the doubt, and Im sure as hell not going to demand a screenshot in some vain attempt when the overall majority of people who voted for (or against) the measure recognized it as an in game event. Conndraka^{mod TAZM CFT} 18:47, 5 October 2008 (BST)

tl;dnr ... I stopped here:

No one has stepped up to the plate to explain how a personal blog, regardless of how popular it is, or how much people liked it (I liked it myself, quite amusing) constitutes an in game event. There is no evidence that this caused anything significant in game above the standard background happenings dictated by internet trends and memes. I have been extraordinarily lenient in my standards for proof on this point, requesting but a single screenshot of a transmission.

This has been explained time and time again... You're free to disagree with the extent of that impact... Even though his impace has been stated and backed up by many, many people... Additionally, to deny Michael Corsair's existence in-game -- to be requiring iwitnesses -- is taking your denial of reality to the point of sheer delusion... --WanYao 21:12, 5 October 2008 (BST)

Now What?

As the case is currently at the Standing of 4 to 0 in favor of Misconduct, It now falls to determine the Outcome of this case. I see several Options:

1. Perceive this as a Vandal Case spun out of control and institute a 48 hour ban that not only takes into account the "vandalism" (technically two counts) and the abuse of authority.
2. Perceive this as a gross abuse of Power and institute a ban of one week in an attempt to drive the point home of the seriousness of the issue. or
   
3. View this situation and Grims response as a sign of a systemic issue that could only be resolved by Grim's removal as a sysop/bureaucrat and launch an immediate vote for his replacement, or modify the existing Vote for Boxy's position to elevate the top two vote recipients.
   

Conndraka^{mod TAZM CFT} 19:07, 5 October 2008 (BST)

Quick clarification about that third option Conn. That would mean, based off current statistics, that Gnome and Karek would become the 'crats right? I'm a bit tired right now, and I just want to be sure thats what will happen in the case of the third choice.-- dǝǝɥs oʇ ɯɐds: sʎɐʍ1ɐ! 22:07, 5 October 2008 (BST)

Just to let you know - a ban only works as a punishment if you enforce it. Grim has had problems sticking to his bans in the past. --HAHAHA DISREGARD THAT, I SUCK COCKS 22:15, 5 October 2008 (BST)

I don't know if anyone realizes, Karek isn't around, nor will he be for a while. --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 22:25, 5 October 2008 (BST)

Should we take his name off the vote thingy then? :S -- Cheese 22:27, 5 October 2008 (BST)

Naw, no need. He can do it if he wants, I left him a message a while ago. --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 22:31, 5 October 2008 (BST)

Okie doke. What shall we do about his Grimchieness then? :/ -- Cheese 22:32, 5 October 2008 (BST)

Hang him! --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 22:34, 5 October 2008 (BST)

Burning's more fun though. :( -- Cheese 22:35, 5 October 2008 (BST)

Why not both? :) --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 22:36, 5 October 2008 (BST)

At the same time >:D With tomato throwage. -- Cheese 22:41, 5 October 2008 (BST)

A good plan. Now where is Grim? --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 22:44, 5 October 2008 (BST)

Dunno :/...we should hide then when he comes we ambush him and tie him up. Then we hang him and set him on fire and throw fusty tomatoes at him. -- Cheese 22:48, 5 October 2008 (BST)

Alright. Grim, when you read this, pretend you didn't. We're not here. Lalala. :stealth: --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 22:49, 5 October 2008 (BST)

Yup. We haven't been plotting your death. Not at all. We were never here. *hides in box* -- Cheese 22:52, 5 October 2008 (BST)

Sorry to rain on the parade but option 3 is totally ridiculous. Yes he was an arrogant tit about the whole thing but (and this bits important) he did not abuse Mod powers just everyone's trust. I would suggest a vote of (No)Confidence but they are far too easily abused... I think a Vandal Charge and a community vote on whether we still trust his judgement would probably be the only fair way to go. As I very much doubt Grim has any outstanding A/VB warnings any actual ban would be a sysop/mod decision to ignore the normal escalation proceedings and I doubt a vote would do more than illustrate who has the most sock puppets!--Honestmistake 00:13, 6 October 2008 (BST)

Fail. Stop being an idiot. --HAHAHA DISREGARD THAT, I SUCK COCKS 00:17, 6 October 2008 (BST)

Pick one already, however if you went with the 3rd i'd suggest you extended Boxy's term and instead put Grim's spot up for election to avoid having 2 brand new crats...--xoxo 01:34, 6 October 2008 (BST)

Why not let the sysops vote on whether or not he should retain his sysop status? We are the ones that are ultimately responsible for "policing" his actions through Misconduct votes. We (mainly Crats) are the ones that decide if he (or anyone) should be promoted. Why not take every misconduct case and make it a demotion vote but then tighten up the standards needed for reporting Misconduct? Also inact a sysop standard of behavior. Karek has pointed out a few times that many "trolling" incidents have been fueled unnecessarily (by Grim mostly) when just being less of an ass would have saved a lot of trouble.

I think he has clearly shown a pattern of bullying and I will come right out and say I am tired of his attitude and self serving interpretation of the policies backed up with his air of self righteousness. The final straw for me was all of the clusters over editing a header on a page and how he selectively voted people that he didn't like (Ioncannon) as vandals but cleared himself and others (in the J3D case and Wan in the T:S page respectively). As sysops we should have say over demotions and be able to call for them when we feel they are needed. And if you honestly think about it most of the "personality conflicts" among sysops involve Grim. I know from time to time many of us "snap" at each other or disagree, but Grim seems to be the one that can not work well with others ever.

We can move the top two candidates in the crat election to the positions. I know Karek said he was going to be less active, but he did not ask for a demotion and if we contact him maybe he will be willing to make an effort to be available for any crat specific actions until the time he can come back full time. Or allow boxy to retain his position since it isn't like he is being asked to step down.

The reason I think we have the right to make these changes is that these are actions that will only affect sysops since everyone involved is already a sysop. And yes, I know this will set the precedent that any sysop can be demoted with a vote amongst the other sysops. I am willing to accept that if my actions become "unpopular" with the other sysops that they can ask for a vote for me to step down. I'm also willing to work to get along with the other ops and actually try to contribute constructively to the wiki in hopes that if maybe I piss someone off they can look on my body of work and realize my intentions. I don't think that is an unreasonable request to ask of us. --– Nubis ^NWO 02:29, 6 October 2008 (BST)

You know, there is a saying that the squeaky wheel gets the oil, but sometimes it's easier to just get a new tire.--– Nubis ^NWO 02:33, 6 October 2008 (BST)

This is spectacularly excessive for a first offense, especially given how bullshit the ruling is. Lets see, we have three rulings of "I disagree with you, thus misconduct, despite no rules being broken", and we have one case of "You defended yourself, as is allowed to every person on this wiki, thus you are not a person and misconduct". And why are all the mentioned "punishments" so extreme (I have 0 active warnings, and no previous misconduct history)? Hagnat went around unilaterally breaking the rules for months, and whenever he got called on it here he was either let off or given meaningless punishments, in one case he was given no punishment at all because it was agreed it wouldnt stop it from happening. But no, on a first offense (Bullshit as it is). People are seriously talking about demotion. I have never committed an act of misconduct before. No proof has been provided (Links please) to show any history of forcing my wishes on the community. I have every right to defend myself from such charges, and you dont have the right to deny me that. This is the most spectacular abuse of misconduct i have seen, and there have been a few real doozies. --The Grimch ^{U! E!} 02:41, 6 October 2008 (BST)

I'm sorry, but I can no longer just sit on the sideline of this. Grim, you know as well as everyone else that if a regular user had removed the Radio Survivor thing just like you did there would have been an uprising of sorts, and an arby case or something would have happened. The only reason why all of this is happening to you is because of what has gone down in the past. You say this is your first offense, but you have had a ton of misconduct cases brought up to you. It is not just because you're a dick. You subtlety abuse your powers indirectly by using the mere fact that you have sysop powers. When someone has an issue with you, you reprimand the hell out of them and then dismiss the whole thing. They don't want to push you to far because you then over react and might ban them. I don't think I need to bring up specific instances because if any looks back to see whom you've banned and why you can see how stupid some of them are and how many people disagree with them. I will say you do make good judgments often, but you do go overboard very often.

The next thing is you talking about Hagnat going around and doing things. Granted, I don't know much of what he did, but you seem to be pulling the classic "If he got away with it, why can't I?" thing. Maybe he did get away with it, but if you are doing things wrong we should get back on the right track by punishing you and anyone else who begins to use their powers wrongly.

Just my opinion, poorly throughout as it may be.--SirArgo ^Talk 02:59, 6 October 2008 (BST)

I fully expected the "uprising" you mentioned. I knew shit was going to hit the fan because, despite being a legal action, it was unpopular. But no, i didnt expect people to throw the rulebook out the window. Now, while i will admit some of the cases i have been brought up before have been quite close to the line between ok and misconduct, othat only applies to one, maybe two of those cases. A lot of them are clear mistakes on the part of people who bring them, or tit for tat reprisals against me for something or other. Many, many months ago i removed the sysop tag from my sig so that, except when i was directly commenting on a page as such, no one would see me as a sysop, and the reason i did that was because a lot of people were having trouble seperating the two faces of my persona here. When someone has an issue with me, i go into debate mode, and proceed to attack arguments made. While this may seem like pummeling the hell out of someone given the clear gulf in skill between the two opponents, it is nothing of the sort. Debate is the best method to work out the validity of a position. Everyone here goes around and discusses whatever it is they like, and people disagree. The fact that my disagreements have weight and structure granted by my comparative skuill in such matters is the only thing that sperates me from others in their minds, and people seem to be forgetting that when i do go into that debate mode, and seem insensitive and uncaring, its because im resorting to pure fact based argument rather than to emotional, and thus i dont intentionally colour my words to portray happy, sad, angry or even wrathful. What people read into those responses doesnt exist. The best way to read my debate style posts (And its pretty easy to seperate them from the rest) is with a dull monotone.
As for the hagnat thing, no, im not saying i should get away with it because he did, im saying that compared to what they did to hagnat for this, they are going way over the top, because this case is about something they care about, and because they have lost their impartiality in thier anger. They are reaching, searching for any way to crucify me. They cant do it with the rules, so they have thrown up a bogus charge of me abusing my status to force my wishes on the community, which is an outright lie, since at no time have i unilaterally overruled anyone, nor have i ever acted without a majority (That wasnt, at the least, subsequently upheld). The reason no links have been provided is because they cannot find anything that fits. So they have asserted that there are some things, which is news to me, in order to give their case some form of weight which it would not have. Make no mistake here, i am being attacked here not because of any actual misconduct on my part, but because they have finally grown sick of me to the point where they are willing to fuck the rules and kill me off anyway. There is no justice in this case, only the will of the enraged mob, composed of people who should have been above such pettyness. --The Grimch ^{U! E!} 03:16, 6 October 2008 (BST)

You know what Grim... Maybe just maybe if you had said "Shit..I was wrong my bad" this would have evaporated. But what you did WASN'T a legal action, and your self righteous, indignant response only makes it worse for you. End of Story. Conndraka^{mod TAZM CFT} 05:24, 6 October 2008 (BST)

I said "Give me one single screenshot". No one seems to have taken me up on that. --The Grimch ^{U! E!} 09:59, 6 October 2008 (BST)

Even I've seen multiple people in Malton with references to a hunt for Uncle Zeddie in their profiles but, not surprisingly, I didn't take screenshots of it. It was indeed an in game event, but I will vote against it being historical due to it's low impact on the game -- boxy ^{talk • i} 13:47 6 October 2008 (BST)

It's very hard to get a screenshot when the event is over. --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 18:32, 6 October 2008 (BST)

Eugenie de Franval and I have a collection of iWitnesses from Zeddie's Christmas Eve do, if that would suit? I'm sure I can find other screenshots or iWitnesses, but those are the first to spring to mind. ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 18:59, 6 October 2008 (BST)

But in the meantime, from the "Who is Uncle Zeddie?" page, I give you one screenshot. ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 19:04, 6 October 2008 (BST)

Thank you, that wasnt so hard. Shouldnt have taken a week, and repeated requests to do. Very well, i was mistaken and some of this event occurred in game, which therefore means it does qualify. --The Grimch ^{U! E!} 00:03, 7 October 2008 (BST)

Too little, too late. You should have made a request for evidence before rushing in and removing the nomination. --HAHAHA DISREGARD THAT, I SUCK COCKS 04:07, 7 October 2008 (BST)

And, as much as I am loathe to agree with Cyberbob... ever... well... yeah... And, again, your request for screenshots was rather absurd and quite unprecidented -- I have a hunch that's why it was ignored for so long. You knew full well that Radio Survivor took place both in-game and out-of-game. My nomination and comment even explained that. Clearly. And others also explained it. Although, if you'd couched it terms like, "Well, WanYao has admitted to stretching -- though he says he hasn't broken -- the definition of an Event. Ok... I know lots of people say it place in-game to some degree, and I trust you, but could you kindly offer some evidence that the definition has been merely 'stretched' not broken? That's fair, no?" But that's not the approach you took. And, the attitude you took in deleting the nomination... You didn't make a header, "Discussion re: removal of RadioSurvivor nomination"; you titled it "Complaints". Ergo the perceptions of arrogance and unilateralism, and the reason for my own knee-jerk (but IMO not unjustified anger). Ok, well, we can let all this slip, ya know. Shit happens... But, it's the way you dug in afterwards. IMO your whole stubbornly intransigent attitude in defending yourself (not once admitting you made a bad judgement call, for example) sadly backed up the perceptions of arrogance and unilateralism, at least for me, and I don't think it's unreasonable to assume for others. That is why this has turned into a witch hunt... And, I know it's coming to end now, and the decision isn't my call... But, I started it... And I'm offering another 2 bits worth before we move on... --WanYao 12:48, 7 October 2008 (BST)

Wooo... angry mob against grim ? can i join in ? --People's Commissar Hagnat ^talk 19:43, 6 October 2008 (BST)

May be a little late. Come back in a week :) D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 08:37, 7 October 2008 (BST)

I think Honestmistake touched upon an important point when he said that Grim "did not abuse Mod powers just everyone's trust". When you are elected to the sysop position you are trusted by the community, your opinions are trusted. But what happens when the community looses trust in a sysop? I purpose that Grim lets the community re-evaluate his position with a reconfirmation bid (such as been done by other sysops previously). There is no point in being in a position which nobody trusts you in. - Jedaz - 00:16/7/10/2008

Yeah, don't we as the community have the right to un-elect those we put in charge? We should if we don't already.--SirArgo ^Talk 00:49, 7 October 2008 (BST)

We have found a witch, may we burn it?

Wasn't the removal something that any user could do, and could be reverted by any other user? Honestly, this is seeming less and less like a misconduct hearing and more and more like a witch hunt. I find it very ironic that many users and sysops alike appear to be entirely willing to throw out the guidelines in this case, which is dealing with a user who stick strictly to the (letter of) the guidelines. Honestly, this is a trivial thing that's been magnified out of proportion by the crazy drama that seems to perpetuate this place. But I guess that's par for the course here... ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 10:50, 7 October 2008 (BST)

I've actually just read this entire thing having avoided admin pages for the last week. This is a witch hunt, it's a popularity contest within the sysops and Grim is losing badly due to the actions of people who seem to have it in for them.

The notion that one of the community's system operators can be prevented from returning to that position of trust by the decision of a select group is troubling at best and plain against policy in reality. I remind all those sysops voting to prevent Grim from regaining sysops status of the Admin Guidelines and specifically this line: "Also, it is expected that a moderator be prepared to reverse a warning/ban should the community desire it.".

Elevation to sysop status requires the approval of the community, demotion other than by request or inactivity should require the same, lest the position of sysop be controlled by a single clique. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 14:46, 7 October 2008 (BST)

Witch hunt, completely unprecedented attack, character assassination... The most unfair process I've ever seen on the UD Wiki. Everyone wanting to string up Grim s over this: Let. It. Go. He's never even had a misconduct ruling before. C'mon.

And as if Izu... ...to won't take this as her own personal victory, creating a few thousand new accounts to taunt with. Do we really need that? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Visible One (talk • contribs) at an unknown time.

Agreeing with the above, this is going beyond ridiculous. Can people seriously believe that this one single case of misconduct warrants the removal of his sysop powers? - User:Whitehouse 18:34, 7 October 2008 (BST)

The Witch Hunts of yesteryear were not like this. It was created by the wiki elite to drive out those that caused problems, vandalized, were generally unliked by all, and were alts of Amazing. We took it upon ourselves to go through all the Recent Changes to find new targets to chase away. It worked until we ran out of targets. Grim is not being targeted in a witch hunt. He's just being turned on like Julius Caesar. If Grim was someone not as popular, important, and well known like Skritz, Firetwig, and Garviel then this would be a witch hunt. --Sonny Corleone ^{DORIS MSD pr0n} 18:38, 7 October 2008 (BST)

FREE TIBET!!! And Grimchy. --Banana reads Scoundrell for all of Yesterday's News, Today! 18:47, 7 October 2008 (BST)

Descision? Sysops Only Beyond this point, Please

Alright, considering the most recent responses My view is this: Removal of sysop/bureaucrat powers. Modifying the current election to retain Boxy for 30 Days and the Top Vote getter replaces Grim (Or Failing that, launch a new vote effective immediately for the position being vacated by grims removal). Conndraka^{mod TAZM CFT} 05:24, 6 October 2008 (BST)

As the election has now ended, it is now my vote for removal of sysop/bureaucrat powers with new election to take place immediately with full slate of candidates (just remove me now...) If Grim thinks he can get enough support to re-elect him to the position of sysop with a new nomination...let him try. I'll be the first to shake his hand, but its my belief that he needs to go through the whole process rather than a reconfirmation. Conndraka^{mod TAZM CFT} 00:33, 7 October 2008 (BST)

No, a simple warning (not official) to avoid taking his own views as absolute law should suffice. Everyone else gets at least one warning, and this isn't major misconduct. Get over it already -- boxy ^{talk • i} 08:48 6 October 2008 (BST)

Boxy, no offense, but you are on your way out and maybe the next Crat won't want to deal with Grim's attitude and abuse of power. Maybe it truly is a time for a big changing of the guard around here. I vote removal of his power and promotion of the top two Crat candidates. I see nothing redeeming in any actions or contributions Grim makes as a sysop. And boxy, once again you miss the big picture. It isn't based on this "one incident" it merely is the final straw. Grim has had more than one warning. His attitude in this clearly shows there is no way with him but Grim's way. --– Nubis ^NWO 21:36, 6 October 2008 (BST)

A pattern that exists only in your assertions. You have yet to provide even a single example, and the page guidelines specifically state proof is required. Wheres the proof Nubis? Give me some links. Again, i question your impartiality on this ludicrously absurd punishment for what is a first offense based onm a bullshit ruling. --The Grimch ^{U! E!} 23:57, 6 October 2008 (BST)

Where is your link to the page guideline that says "proof" is needed? Where is your link to all of the other events and their screenshots that were "required" for voting to even begin? How can you question my impartiality? Am I running for Crat? And I am clearly not in some conspiracy with Conndraka of all people. --– Nubis ^NWO 13:40, 7 October 2008 (BST)

Paragraph 3. Have fun. --The Grimch ^{U! E!} 13:42, 7 October 2008 (BST)

How can you possibly claim to be unbiased, conn, when asking for that ludicrously absurd punishment for what is, at worst, trivial. I have always been able to be overruled, just like every other sysop on this wiki can be by a majority. It should have been done that way. Not with this retarded and baseless misconduct case. --The Grimch ^{U! E!} 10:02, 6 October 2008 (BST)

There is a pattern of abuse. Don't claim that you can always be "overruled" even when using your own quotes against you you still "debate" on posting walls of text filled with spelling errors and angry rants that repeat nothing useful and ignore the points others have brought up. No one has as much free time as you seem to have nor the desire to post counter walls of text to you. And as the guilty party you really shouldn't be posting in the decision section since you can't vote and any comment you make in response to decisions are going to be nothing more than bitter personal attacks or false claims of being a poor victim.--– Nubis ^NWO 21:36, 6 October 2008 (BST)

So yes, more assertions of your own without any proof. If you had read the posts, instead of ignoring them, you would have seen sound logical arguments that systematically undermined and rebutted your entire position. The only reason you havent is because you arent even bothering to read them. It is a sad shame that you have gone so thoroughly rogue that you are willing to plain make shit up to get rid of me. What the fuck have i ever done to you that made you hate me so? --The Grimch ^{U! E!} 00:13, 7 October 2008 (BST)

If you had bothered to read my comments you would see exactly what you "have done that made me hate you so" because I think I may have even used the phrase "the final straw". I also have bolded text up there that may apply, but clearly you didn't read any of it. --– Nubis ^NWO 13:42, 7 October 2008 (BST)

FYI This should have been left on the talk page, Grim, the determination of Misconduct has already been made, and it is only the discussion of Misconduct that is to remain on this page per guidelines. But Im beyond the point of caring, you absolutely cannot see anything done that is not done your way. Conndraka^{mod TAZM CFT} 00:18, 7 October 2008 (BST)

Its part of the case, and it stays here. The fact it was a criticism of yourself, and that it was you who removed it shows pretty clearly that you have a massive bias against me in this case, attempting to shift my comment on this bias to talk in order to conceal it. --The Grimch ^{U! E!} 03:49, 7 October 2008 (BST)

Going to lower myself to perhaps something akin to what you might understand...Smoke Crack much you paranoid, delusional, egomaniacal superfreak? Goodbye. Conndraka^{mod TAZM CFT} 05:11, 7 October 2008 (BST)

I personally feel that Grim should be demoted from 'crat to sysop. Not so much as a punishment, but rather because his methods better suit that role. As a sysop, you have extra buttons but in a way, you are still a regular user who can do a bit more. As a 'crat every action you take has a sort of finality to it. As though your word is the final one. That's why I don't think Grim being a 'crat is a good idea. I can guarantee there will be other misconduct cases exactly like this in the future unless Grim changes his attitude. I don't see that happening to be prefectly honest.
I vote for Grim's demotion to sysop and for either a new 'crat election to be held to decide on a replacement or for Boxy to retain his position. -- Cheese 00:23, 7 October 2008 (BST)

Thats absurd for at least two reasons: 1, none of my crat abilities were used. and 2, you are attempting to overturn, unilaterally, the result of a popular vote where i was granted that responsibility. Unless you can show where i abused my crat powers in this, leave them alone. Also, it would be nice to be shown where i abused my sysop powers, as that still hasnt been established, just assertions of continued attempts to force my wishes on the community by using my sysop status (Which i have never done). --The Grimch ^{U! E!} 03:49, 7 October 2008 (BST)

And let me be PERFECTLY clear. The Sysop team has found you guilty of Misconduct. Those who have so far voted have all agreed In a vote of 3 to 1 that your status as bureaucrat is going the way of the dodo, what is left to be decided is your status as a sysop. Conndraka^{mod TAZM CFT} 05:15, 7 October 2008 (BST)

And your doing so without presenting any proof whatsoever that what i have done is misconduct is in and of itself misconduct on your parts. --The Grimch ^{U! E!} 10:15, 7 October 2008 (BST)

Just because you are choosing to ignore what we are presenting as evidence doesn't make it go away. If you are seriously unable to see what issues I will fight for you demotion over then perhaps you aren't as "clever" as you tend to think. --– Nubis ^NWO 13:47, 7 October 2008 (BST)

Theres nothing there to ignore because you havent posted any (If you have, provide diff links, its entirely possible i simply missed them). Its just assertions of some grand actions that i have done. Give me specific examples. Give me links where i have said "We will do it this way, and you cant have a say in it because i am a sysop" or anything similiar. I have never used my position as a badge of authority. In fact, i am the person who has been continually reminding people that we do not have any superior authority outside of administrative tasks, continually reiterating the fact that we are supposed to be janitors, not rulers. We clean up, and do the dirty jobs that keep the place running smoothly. If there are examples, provide them. If not, reverse your decision. You have absolutely no right within the rules of this wiki to rule misconduct because you dont like someone. --The Grimch ^{U! E!} 15:01, 7 October 2008 (BST)

Final Ruling

Grims comments beforehand

Lets look through the misconduct archives for a sec and see what history tells us. For the sake of the argument, lets just stick with the records of those who :

Boxy: Misconduct once for unilaterally ruling on a misconduct case and hastily banning another user before they could make a defense. Was subsequently overruled. Status: Still a Sysop. No move to remove his powers.
Conndraka: Misconduct twice, For illegally permabanning one user, and double escalating another. Status: Still a Sysop. No serious push to remove his powers
Krazy Monkey (Aka Cheeseman): Misconduct once, for ruling on a case attempting to set a precident to let him off in an identical case. Status: Still a sysop. No attempt to remove his powers
Nubis: Misconduct once. Edited a protected page to troll the DHPD. Status: Still a Sysop. No attempt to remove his powers.
Grim: Made a mistake, but abused no actual abilities. Was brought here instantly instead of people trying to work it out. Considerable cries of "CRUCIFY HIM!"

Sysops have only ever been demoted twice because of misconduct. Oddstarter lost his crat privs for promoting amazing, and amazing lost his sysop powers when he deleted images on this wiki without permission. He would likely have lost them anyway. Hagnat was never forced to rerun, nor was cyberbob. They did it of their own free will.

Vote

Considering the severity of the situation, there must be a clear and concise judgment of the Sysop team to render a decision. This decision should be determined by as many members of this sysop team as can be assembled. Therefore I set before you a method of deliberation

To Remove Grim as Bureaucrat

This result would launch an immediate vote in the community for a new Bureaucrat.

1. For Conndraka^{mod TAZM CFT} 05:38, 7 October 2008 (BST)
2. Against - he's not abused his bureaucrat position, at all -- boxy ^{talk • i} 09:59 7 October 2008 (BST)
3. For --– Nubis ^NWO 13:48, 7 October 2008 (BST)
4. Against - Naw. --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 18:40, 7 October 2008 (BST)

To Remove Grim as Sysop

An affirmative in this result in addition to above would return Grim to the status of regular user, as this would indicate he is no longer a trusted user.

1. For Conndraka^{mod TAZM CFT} 05:38, 7 October 2008 (BST)
2. Against - total overkill for a first offense, even if it's been coming for a while -- boxy ^{talk • i} 09:59 7 October 2008 (BST)
3. For --– Nubis ^NWO 13:49, 7 October 2008 (BST)
4. Against - As Boxy. -- Cheese 18:03, 7 October 2008 (BST)
5. Against - Nooo. --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 18:40, 7 October 2008 (BST)

For Grim to be allowed to run again for Sysop

This would allow for Grim to run again as a sysop immediately upon the completion of this case should it be so decided that his sysop duties/status be removed.

1. For Conndraka^{mod TAZM CFT} 05:38, 7 October 2008 (BST)
2. Against - it's complete and utter idiocy to even suggest that you have the power to stop him from reapplying for the position whenever the hell he likes -- boxy ^{talk • i} 09:59 7 October 2008 (BST)
3. Against --– Nubis ^NWO 13:49, 7 October 2008 (BST)
4. Against - Way over the top. -- Cheese 18:02, 7 October 2008 (BST)
5. Against - Way. --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 18:40, 7 October 2008 (BST)

A Simple Warning

This would see grim get an administrative warning for his behaviour.

1. For - he needs to accept that his opinion does not equal law around here, and a warning is the appropriate thing to do seeing as this is the first time he's ever been done for misconduct, and this is hardly major misconduct (such as an unwarranted banning a user) -- boxy ^{talk • i} 09:59 7 October 2008 (BST)
2. For - But realistically, a short ban would do better since words fly over his head. But a warning will do. And this doesn't mean I vote misconduct, this is just the best option presented. --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 18:28, 7 October 2008 (BST)