UDWiki talk:Administration/Misconduct

Move all discussions related to a misconduct case to the archive once a verdict has been reached, and general discussion ended.

Grim x1000

Concerning the "Community Opinion" bit...

Is there any system already in place, on this wiki, where users on the wiki can call for a "vote of confidence"/"vote of no confidence" on the people they elected? (If there isn't...err...there probably should be? :P And if there is one, can people maybe use THAT means of calling Grim to account for issues of trustworthiness, and not do so as part of this crazy misconduct-hearing?)

A very related question...is there any precedent at all for a user-led "vote of confidence"/"vote of no-confidence" on a crat or sysop? From what people have said in the thread, I've gathered that the only time a review-vote had been held before was because the person decided to put themselves up for review voluntarily, not because they were called up for review by others, or because there was any system in place whereby wiki officers were routinely called up for review. --Jen 05:30, 8 October 2008 (BST)

While I agree that there should be a system in place for this, I feel that it should come from a Misconduct case by way of Sysop suggestion (or something similar). Otherwise, you would just see petty users putting up Sysops and 'Crats for demotion as a result of any old argument.--CyberRead240 05:37, 8 October 2008 (BST)

Mmmm, true. There's enough craziness around here as it is. In either case...where would one propose a change to wiki policy, to implement some system like that? --Jen 05:58, 8 October 2008 (BST)

Go Here--CyberRead240 06:14, 8 October 2008 (BST)

There is no system current in place for the community to review its trust in sysops or crats. I am sort of working on an entirely new set of policies that would allow for this, however I do not foresee enough cooperation from the sysop team to allow me to bring these anywhere near completion. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 14:41, 8 October 2008 (BST)

My advice is to simply not waste your time on it. The system is so thoroughly corrupt and broken that it needs to be ripped out entirely and have a new one laid upon the ashes of the old. Not a chance of that happening without kevan intervening though, especially given the ruling clique, and a society here that seems to resist all attempts to change the status quo. This isnt the first time they have fucked me over. --The Grimch ^{U! E!} 14:49, 8 October 2008 (BST)

My system would reset the old one and void it completely, however I do not believe I'll be able to finish it to the necessary standard. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 15:08, 8 October 2008 (BST)

how come the society here appears not to change the status quo, when they are finally saying they are tired of the status quo (you being a troll with sysop powers) and asking it to be changed ? --People's Commissar Hagnat ^talk 14:53, 8 October 2008 (BST)

This is a complete fucking farce. Grim was wrong, and I do believe this is misconduct, but due to the fact no 'crat powers were used, it should not be a demotion. A hard warning, or a short ban is a more correct punishment. A demotion is very harsh.--Drawde ^{Talk To Me! DORIS Red Rum Defend Ridleybonk! I know Nothing!} 16:30, 8 October 2008 (BST)

Care to tell me which sysop ability i abused? Or are you going to attempt the "Abusing position as sysop as badge of authority to force wishes on the wiki" thing Nubis and Conn have tried to pull without evidence? --The Grimch ^{U! E!} 17:40, 8 October 2008 (BST)

Yes, exactly the reason you stated. It probably is more vandalism then misconduct, but that would still warrant the same punishment I am advocating. I do not support a demotion, harshly advocated by Conndraka and Nubis. I feel that with the records you posted about the other mods, it harshly unfair and very hypocritical to remove you as a 'crat for what is, in essence, a very minor offence.--Drawde ^{Talk To Me! DORIS Red Rum Defend Ridleybonk! I know Nothing!} 19:07, 8 October 2008 (BST)

An outsiders opinion I must say I'm terribly disappointed in the sysops and other wiki users as it relates to the recent shitstorm surrounding Grim. After slogging through post after post from just about everyone it seems, I find myself scratching my head. It boils down to this. Grim pisses people off. He has a track record of being a bit of a dick on the suggestions pages. So, when this idea that RadioSurvior should be listed as an historical event came up, he saw it as not meeting the criteria for an "event".

The criteria in question are as follows

1. Events must have been declared over.
2. The event must have affected either multiple suburbs or how the game was played for a group, such as triggering a change.

As the RadioSurvivor thing was essentially a blog that existed outside of the game and the wiki, it's not unreasonable for Grim to have drawn this conclusion. His conclusion (and my own) may be wrong, but not entirely unreasonable. Now, the first best course of action would have been for him to simply vote "no" and explain why he thinks it does not meet the criteria. But he deleted it because he believed it to be his job to do so. Is that an abuse of power? I certainly don't see it that way. Is it a mistake made by one who wields more power on the wiki than average users? Yes, probably. But rather than address it that way, and have a reasonable discussion, this thing has morphed into a witch burning.

I appreciate that the sysops and 'crats who work this wiki keep the thing from falling to pieces. It's a thankless job and it's littered with landmines. Yes, Grim is responsible for creating and perpetuating some of the conflict that surrounds him, and I've seen him own that here. What I haven't seen is any ownership from anyone else who has contributed. I see a dogpile of sysops wanting to boot Grim from their ranks without one solid reason. The reason is as transparent as the emporer's new clothes.

I'm not a fan of Grim's tactics, but I am 100% disappointed in those who have piled onto this ludicrous bandwagon. If punishment is warranted it should at least fit the crime. It shouldn't be about all the hurt feelings and bruised egos over the past couple of years. It's about the action and the appropriate response. Period. --Stephen Colbert DFA 17:46, 8 October 2008 (BST)

I agree that the "punishment" for this should be little more than a slap on the wrist. However the actual problem is little more than a symptom of something that has been bubbling up ever since Grim first got promoted to Sysop... namely that he feels that whatever he does is right and that there is no possibility that those who disagree could have a point (let alone that he could be wrong) The whole issue seems like a witch hunt (and to a very large extent I do think that is what it has become) However, rightly or wrongly Grim seems to have lost the trust and respect of the community at large and that needs to be addressed... Indeed the whole method of holding Sysops accountable for their actions needs serious attention. An important (arguably the most important) part of a Sysops role is that of "trusted user" When we the community vote on whether another user should be promoted we are voting on whether we feel the user in question is competent and whether we trust their judgement... Grim was voted Sysop a long time ago and very few of the people who voted him to his position are still here. As for his promotion to Crat... well I have seen at least one person who voted for him saying they now regret it and wish they had a way to make that opinion not only known but count. --Honestmistake 17:58, 8 October 2008 (BST)

Honestmistake, I understand your point regarding being a "trusted user". It's valid, but it's not a part of the current sysop/'crat accountability system. I think it's even a good idea, but I also think that it would be a travesty to rush to create a "no confidence" vote to fit this situation. This situation should be fairly addressed with the rules that we already have in place. Grim should be held responsible for this minor action by the standards we already have. If people would like to have a recall vote or whatever you may want to call it, then write a completely thought-out policy and propose it. It would be unjust to create a new policy and apply it retroactively in this case. Hell, I voted for George W Bush, and I regret it, but that doesn't give me the right to unelect him. Regret for the decisions we make is part of life, and it's ok. If we change the rules to find a way to boot Grim from his status, then ALL sysops are then subject to it, and I'll be leading the charge to get each one that supports such nonsense booted as well. --Stephen Colbert DFA 19:30, 8 October 2008 (BST)

If we're going to start making analogies...George W Bush isn't president for life, in office until he decides to retire, or until Congress impeaches him. But that's what the current sysop/crat system is like. I'm uncomfortable coming up with a new policy on the fly, and mixed in with the whole Grim mess...but apparently the people who were working on improvements to the accountability system before this despaired of their improvements ever seeing the light of day. Does it take DRAMA like this for anything to get overhauled ever around here? Apparently so. :P

If people are going to go the "trustworthiness"/"vote of no confidence" route...there should probably be voting done for EVERY sysop and crat simultaneously. Not just Grim. Because, as things stand, ALL sysops and crats are currently in the same "President for Life" situation. --Jen 22:36, 8 October 2008 (BST)

You may be interested to know that there was an open discussion, held in May this year as

“	a simple poll to discuss, among the community, which sysops the users trust and which ones they dont trust to use their abilities and sysop "authority" responsibly.	”
—System Operators, which ones do you trust

Guess who started it? ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 00:19, 9 October 2008 (BST)

All he deserves for what he did the other day is a warning. The people trying to get him booted off the sysop/crat team for that stupid thing he did are overreacting, and wrong. But people do have a point that there's been longstanding dissatisfaction with how he conducts himself and represents the wiki team, and that this dissatisfaction is shared by a large variety of users.

Honestly, right now, I'd probably vote "keep" on Grim, if he was up for a vote. (Though the way he advised certain users to react to Zeug inclines me otherwise, I must admit). But I still think he should face a vote. I think ANY sysop or crat should have to. There's no system in place of the community to give a re-vote of confidence/no-confidence on someone they elected, and it's a problem. And because there's no system in place, tensions build and build and build, until something like this happens, and everyone explodes, and tries to get someone kicked out of their position of authority for some trivial thing, because there's no way to call them to account for the whole "iceberg" of the problem. --Jen 18:58, 8 October 2008 (BST)

That was an excellent post Stephen, and explained my feelings perfectly. This is a minor offence being completely overblown.--Drawde ^{Talk To Me! DORIS Red Rum Defend Ridleybonk! I know Nothing!} 19:11, 8 October 2008 (BST)

Karek

"The Crusades were, in part, an outlet for an intense religious piety which rose up in the late 11th century among the lay public. A crusader would, after pronouncing a solemn vow, receive a cross from the hands of the pope or his legates, and was thenceforth considered a "soldier of the Church". This was partly because of the Investiture Controversy, which had started around 1075 and was still on-going during the First Crusade. As both sides of the Investiture Controversy tried to marshal public opinion in their favor, people became personally engaged in a dramatic religious controversy."[1]

The wikipedia article is not entirely accurate. Well, it's incomplete, at least. It fails to mention the massive food riots taking place, particularly in France, due to 2 years of poor crops and famine. And there were, in fact, many millenarian cults and other deeply threatening "heretical" Christian movements popping up at the time... Thus, the First Crusade was as much a way to distract and diffuse the very real social tensions -- very possibly even all out insurrectionary tendencies -- among the peasants at the time... All the while shoring up the power of the Pope and his doctrinal and institutional allies...

Those who do not learn from history, are doomed to repeat it. --WanYao 19:02, 21 August 2008 (BST)

Call me a stupid fucking retard but i don't see where your going with this...it's too subtle for my peasant mind.--xoxo 07:17, 22 August 2008 (BST)

It appears to be a Metaphor, how quaint. Techercizer ^(Food) _(TSoE) 16:19, 22 August 2008 (BST)

Grim <3

You need to give up the whole "vendetta" thing you keep using, Grim. The ruling on Jed's case has nothing to do with this. That's all.--Nallan (Talk) 07:15, 2 August 2008 (BST)

Well this isnt the first time he has tried to make something of nothing. Im just calling it as it is. --The Grimch ^{U! E!} 07:26, 2 August 2008 (BST)

Grim, I think you are out on a vendetta to get Jed banned after him standing you up on the promotions issue.--CyberRead240 07:29, 2 August 2008 (BST)

Grim, the other time i "made something out of nothing" was Wan, and if you're talking about something else i'm sorry, but it's hard to know without you citing.--xoxo 07:36, 2 August 2008 (BST)

I think "soft warnings" should go on someone's talk page, not through the A/VB system. That way it translates into a wary reminder instead of some kind of system-bypass. I of course realize the odds of this idea actually happening are infinitesimal, but policy changes can't happen unless people suggest them, so there. Techercizer ^(Food) _(TSoE) 23:44, 2 August 2008 (BST)

The only reason he posts it in the A/VB system is to let the other Sysops know it happened, it is posted on both, although there is also UDWiki:Administration/Discussion which all Sysops should be watching.--Karek^maps?! 23:56, 2 August 2008 (BST)

Why do other sysops need to know about it if it is not official and doesn't contribute to any sort of escalation in any way at all?--CyberRead240 02:48, 3 August 2008 (BST)

Because it does escalate. As Grim said somewhere (A/VB i think), your 3rd 'soft warning' is a real warning. Which is where my (and everyone else's) problems with the system stem from, if it was just a friendly reminder that what you are saying isn't appreciated that would be fine.--xoxo 02:58, 3 August 2008 (BST)

That's both right and horribly wrong. We need to know about it because we need to know if you know what you did shouldn't be done, as a courtesy soft warnings are usually done twice in case you've forgotten and it's assumed that if you need to be told more than twice you don't need to be told and know better, 2 soft warnings for different things do not lead to an escalation, 2 soft warnings on the same thing don't always lead to an escalation either. Soft Warnings are them trying to solve the problem before it gets to the point where A/VB escalations are necessary. The problems that tend to stem from it are because of a misunderstanding of what a soft warnings are and are meant to be.--Karek^maps?! 03:08, 3 August 2008 (BST)

So Grim thought that Jed was committing vandalism, but didn't know better, so only gave him a soft warning? Come on now, it's becoming more obvious that the case was created to stir trouble, which is bad faith. Grim knows Jed has been here for a long time, he knows he couldn't actually ban him for something so petty, so he put him up on A/VB as a cheap shot in the little war they are having. If thats not misconduct, it damn well should be.--CyberRead240 03:22, 3 August 2008 (BST)

As i said, his only legitimate examples of me spamming on a/vb with irrelevant crap are from months ago, why didn't i get the soft warning then? Because Grim giving me this soft warning is 100% personal. If soft warnings are meaningless i don't care if he gives me one for personal reasons, if they have a value then i should see some solid reasoning as to why i got one.--xoxo 03:30, 3 August 2008 (BST)

That's between you and Grim, at least until he attempts to give a real escalation. That being said, yeah, a soft warning is meaningless if the reasoning isn't offered and if it's for something in the distant past.--Karek^maps?! 10:35, 3 August 2008 (BST)

The way I see it, Soft warnings are a sysop's way of telling you: "look, you're toeing the line here", for stuff that maaaay be considered possible vandalism, but can probably be solved with a quick notification. If you keep "toeing the line" on the same thing after 2 warnings, well, maybe you should have some action taken, since you're ignoring sysop input and whatnot, but that act shouldn't be up to the same sysop. Soft Warnings on different things, on the other hand, shouldn't (and I think don't) add. Basically, you shouldn't get angry at someone for letting you know you're crossing into the grey area, nor should you auto-convict someone who's doing something that may or may not be considered Vandalism. I.E., J3D should assume Grim is doing the equivalent of leaving a message on his talk page in concern (and can ignore it or respond to it), and Grim should (maybe?) be a bit clearer on the policy of soft warnings, as there seems to be a lot of murkiness in that regard..........Unless I'm completely and utterly wrong about this, that is. In which case, never mind me! Techercizer ^(Food) _(TSoE) 07:04, 3 August 2008 (BST)

Simply, it should not be posted on the Vandal page if it is not an official Vandalism warning. It should be done through talk pages, and perhaps a separate page. What everyone is failing to see here, is that Grim brought up stuff that Jed did months ago and gave him a soft warning for it just to show that he could, and just to be an asshole. The misconduct, in my opinion, is not about whether or not Jed deserved the warning, its about the bad faith manner in which Grim presented it. All he was doing was antagonizing Jed with the hope of creating more conflict. Not acceptable behaviour from a 'crat OR a sysop. You don't need to have an official name for instructing a user on the wrong or right way to handle things, you can just do that on a talk page without glorifying it. Grim is just stirring shit. Learn to stand up for yourselves, he is not invincible or anything, so why the fuck do you all act like it--CyberRead240 07:22, 3 August 2008 (BST)

I thought I already explained why the posting it on A/VB thing started? It's just him catching the other sysop's attention, that being said it might be better done on the Sysop Discussion page if at all. That doesn't make it misconduct, and ignoring that makes the claims that it is misconduct both somewhat petty and false. Stop trying to twist Soft Warnings and Misconduct to further what is a very very personal dispute between a group of users and Grim, nothing good can come of it.--Karek^maps?! 10:35, 3 August 2008 (BST)

I agree, removing soft warnings from the Vandalism page should significantly lessen the drama, and help prevent misunderstandings. Techercizer ^(Food) _(TSoE) 18:56, 3 August 2008 (BST)

Grim, again...

The fact this is even a debate is representative of why users on this wiki no longer trust their trusted users. This is not the only recent case that this could be said for... -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 21:51, 1 July 2008 (BST)

Boxy

Closed this policy prematurely, stating that it was "humorous" - despite my stated intent that I fully intended to have it get passed (or failed) and thus warned and/or banned as a result.
I am, and was, serious as a heart attack.
And come on: you know that a misconduct case is the logical - nay, required - next step in this entire farce. The past week has shown that the community is perfectly willing to throw up stupid misconduct cases, so adding one of my own is par for the course.--Jorm 06:31, 5 June 2008 (BST)

"serious as a heart attack". Uhm, no: no, you're not. Heart attacks can kill: you're just being vaguely irritating. Try "serious as a zit", and you're pretty much there. --Funt Solo ^QT 14:14, 5 June 2008 (BST)

Grim

I just want to know. has he ever said the words, "I was wrong" or anything to that effect? I agree with some of Cheeseman's comments that grim shows no respect for the opinions of anyone. he always has to be right. that said, I think that's just his personality, not really misconduct. you don't have to like the guy (I dont) but he hasnt broken any rules, as far as I can tell.--'BP^Tmz 05:51, 12 May 2008 (BST)

I have backed down when its been shown ive been wrong (One example in my promotions bid, and there are others here and there), it just hasnt happened much because the standard form of debate here is to reiterate the same point over and over again regardless of how thoroughly its been knocked down, cut to pieces, burnt and defecated on, and i happen to be very good at arguing points. Its not so much that im wrong on cases that i dont win on so much as i am overruled by a mob who i see as children for failing to prove their point or adhere to anything resembling a logical reasoning process (If they did, i would welcome being shown i was wrong on a point, because its a learning experience. See new ways of reasoning and such). Dont get me wrong, they try, but they cant seperate analytical thinking from all the immediate emotional responses, which is why the slandering of users is pretty effective on this wiki, and why they make so many poor calls. Then theres the cliquing front. --The Grimch ^{U! E! WAT!} 10:44, 12 May 2008 (BST)