UDWiki:Administration/Misconduct/Archive/Hagnat/2007

From The Urban Dead Wiki
Jump to navigationJump to search

Administration » Misconduct » Archive » Hagnat » 2007

2007, September 27

Hagnat edited a protected page and struck out a ban. he was even told of his mistake and ignored it. please unstrike the ban, and warn Hagnat for useing his powers for his own gain.--'BPTmz 01:08, 27 September 2007 (BST)

Well that ban was part of a misconduct case, and as it wasn't a 24 or 48hr ban, isn't part of the warning/banning progression. There really is no advantage to striking it out for Hagnat, he'd still get both (24 + 48) if it came to that. It's purely academic whether it is struck or not, but after a year, and given that it's still left on the page (only with a strike through), I tend to think not misconduct. It would be different if it was a ban in the warning/banning progression, of course. They definitely stay in place no matter how much time passes -- boxy • talk • 03:38 27 September 2007 (BST)
Oh, Misconduct... I didn't want this to happen, mostly because I know how small is the breach. Anyways, the ruling is ok, all I should say is that it would be cool for the strike to be removed and the word "unwarranted" being added, plus his 3 hs unwarranted ban being added to the record as well: makes Hagnat's current status clearer on A/VD, and fits better with precedent on the page. --Matthew Fahrenheit YRC☺T☺+1 04:12, 27 September 2007 (BST)
i would be happy with it unstruck, as well.--'BPTmz 04:16, 27 September 2007 (BST)
Matt, you're no longer a sysop. Your word carries no weight here on A/M, AFAIK.--Vow 04:23, 27 September 2007 (BST)
That doesnt mean hes not entitled to an opinion.--  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 04:27, 27 September 2007 (BST)
Actually, beyond the guy who made the report, all you guys should have been doing this conversation in the talk page ¬¬ Leave the administration pages for the administration. Do not comment on them unless you are directly involved in the case. --People's Commissar Hagnat [cloned] [mod] 04:38, 27 September 2007 (BST)
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. That was taken textually from this page rules. You can, of course, change them without consensus to avoid all that pesky democracy, like on A/PM. --Matthew Fahrenheit YRC☺T☺+1 04:43, 27 September 2007 (BST)
Democracy is for the weak. Where do i sign to rule this thing with my iron fist ? --People's Commissar Hagnat [cloned] [mod] 04:47, 27 September 2007 (BST)
I like Matt's idea. Just make a note that both bans were "unwarranted". --Max Grivas JG / M.F.T. 05:07, 27 September 2007 (BST)
I like MF's idea. Vow, please don't comment if you're of the belief that non sysops can't talk here. And Hagnat... Become my apprentice. Learn to use the dark side of the Force. --Darth Sensitive Talk W! 06:07, 27 September 2007 (BST)
I don't know that unwarranted is the word to use, they were justified bans (as punishment for misconduct), just not part of the warning/banning progression -- boxy • talk • 06:40 27 September 2007 (BST)

Not misconduct. We've got a rule that warnings can be stricken after enough time and edits. He followed that rule.

To promote users to reform and become good contributors to this Wiki, a single warning can be struck out for every 250 good-faith edits the warned user makes, provided that two months have passed since the user's last infraction. No ban shall be delivered if the user has less than two standing warnings on his or her record on the vandal data page, even if he or she has been banned before. see here. The fact that he also struck the 34 hour ban doesn't matter as it's not part of the vandal banning escalation tree. -- Evil  Vista  11:35, 27 September 2007 (BST)

Seconded. --The Grimch U! E! 13:34, 27 September 2007 (BST)
no where on that page did i read that bans could be struck out though, part of the escalation tree of not. --'BPTmz 14:39, 27 September 2007 (BST)
Doesnt say they cant either. --The Grimch U! E! 14:47, 27 September 2007 (BST)
The ban wasn't part of the escalation tree but for misconduct. It doesn't matter for the escalation tree whether it is stricken or not. And also the text is a bit dubiously worded as we regard every single step in the escalation tree a warning even if that warning resulted in a ban.-- Evil  Vista  19:09, 27 September 2007 (BST)
That's what i always assumed. Bans are nothing but warnings with a harsh punishment than a simple textual slap in the wrist. --People's Commissar Hagnat [cloned] [mod] 19:49, 27 September 2007 (BST)
For the purpose of the Guidelines, warns and bans are two very different instances of sanction. It was never meant for bans to be striken, but only warns. --Matthew Fahrenheit YRC☺T☺+1 20:01, 27 September 2007 (BST)
For the purposes of the guidelines they are in fact interchangeable, they are different names for a level of the escalation tree. The text is somewhat ambiguous there in but the actual practice is well established. I don't know what the policy was meant to achieve precisely, but removing a single level of the escalation tree would be more practical then mess about with the start of the tree. It would become unmanageable. Either way it doesn't matter in this case as the striking only matters for the vandal escalation tree. What Hagnat struck was a mention of a misconduct banning, those are only there for record keeping and not part of the normal vandal banning tree anyway. It's still part of the record even if it has a strike through it. If we want to hash out the meaning of the striking out policy we shouldn't be doing that here.-- Evil  Vista  21:30, 27 September 2007 (BST)


2007, September 15

My friend Nalikill and his friend 73 were banned. There was no judgement on by any other sysop on that page- or even a judgement from him. Not only did he have no right to ban them without a judgement, he abused his powers by being the one to ban them when he was too biased to render a strictly unbiased judgement. Vandlilism thang http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php/UDWiki:Administration/Vandal_Banning#Seventythree_and_Nalikill

Deletion thang

http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php?title=UDWiki%3AAdministration%2FDeletions&diff=825485&oldid=825482 Lukeninersfan 22:07, 15 September 2007 (BST) Enough. All people not involved in this case had comments moved the talkpage. This is not the place to have a freestyle discussion. Do not clutter up this page any further if you are not Hagnat, Seventythree, Nalikill or a sysop.-- Vista  +1  01:07, 16 September 2007 (BST)

Not Misconduct - Four men enter one man leaves. Several people got a little stupid shortly before server reset. There were bans, warnings, warn bannings, and ban warnings. Now, Shoot zombies / Eat brains. Tomorrow is another day. --Max Grivas JG / M.F.T. 01:09, 16 September 2007 (BST)
Max grivas, please do not jump the gun until I make my comment, This is clearly misconduct and I was already busy collecting all the data.-- Vista  +1  01:11, 16 September 2007 (BST)
Please review all of 73,nali,Engle and Gnomes edits from the prior day before forming that conclusion. --Max Grivas JG / M.F.T. 01:15, 16 September 2007 (BST)
I am just doing that, as well as presenting all that data here complete with time line. With a little patience you'll see my argument. I'm not as fast as I'd like to be.-- Vista  +1  01:22, 16 September 2007 (BST)

From what I've seen of the drama, I'm inclined to rule that this was misconduct. While a sysops is justified in handing out an interim ban to long term members in order to stop protracted edit conflicts until another sysop can rule on A/VB cases, this time Nalikill only reverted twice, and I don't see where 73 reverted anything at all. Both of those users definitely deserve a warning. Don't fuck with the admin pages you clowns. It's enough of a pain in the arse to trawl through them as it is, without having to fix up your clowning around. The preceding signed comment was added by boxy (talk • contribs) at 01:17 16 September 2007 (BST)

Frankly speaking, i think it's easy to show up two hours later and point the finger at me claiming misconduct!. But for a whole hour i had to deal with these users, which were causing drama and more drama and asking for drama to stop. They were not only causing drama, butwhen the drama was about to come to an end (with me ruling not vandalism on byteme42 vandal report), they simply started a whole lot of drama about the Deletion page. They knew it would lead to nothing, asking an highly used administration pages to be deleted, and after the deletion request was removed and vandalism reported they kept editing the page. I tried to be reasonable, but a 24h ban was the only option i had to end this whole situation. I was pretty aware that it would have been brought to this page, but i strongly believe that my actions were in the good interest of the entire Urban Dead Community while theirs were only for the lulz.--People's Commissar Hagnat [cloned] [mod] 01:27, 16 September 2007 (BST)

Kisses Vista for unblocking him. Kisses the wiki ground. Ahem. Now, if I may throw in my three bits.
1.I was acting stupid, no one questions that.
2.I would've stopped if I'd been warned, or had had the rule that I'd broken cited at me, even if I'd been pissed about it afterward, or even if a judgement had been issued.
3.I don't know about 73, but as for me, I'd drop my part of the charges in exchange for the vandal data entry about the ban being replaced with one about a warning (basically asking for the ban to have never officially happened, and to be replaced with a warning), and an apology from hagnat. Nalikill 01:36, 16 September 2007 (BST)

Thank god for that! Ok, number one, I was fairly certain that something would come of me for what I did, and it did. This is misconduct I guess, but only in the sense that Hagnat made a mistake in banning me from the word go. We all make mistakes and I'm realy not one to hold a grudge. I did make that edit in good faith. I was making a point that I thought most people would agree with: Namely that people are increasingly using arbitration, vandal banning and deletions to further conflicts with each other and create needless drama in the process. I don't like this. The edits made by those trying to drop others in the shit are not good faith edits. For example see the recent vandal banning case againgst Grim_s where neither party involved felt offended, or whatever, yet someone had to come in and annoy us all to get back at Grim_s. THese pages are there to improve the way things are done, not to continue petty rivalry.

I was wrong to do what I did, and I accept that. However It was in good faith. I wanted to cause a bit of a joke, but at the same time make a very valid point at the recent increase of people using Admin pages to get at other people and throw their weight around. I didn't think it would elicit the response it did, and I apolagise. To end with, go easy on HAgnat, he did what he though right, and if he did make a mistake, then, well, who has'nt.--Seventythree 01:37, 16 September 2007 (BST)

moved non-relevant comments to the talk page.-- Vista  +1  01:52, 16 September 2007 (BST)
I am glad you all agree that you were in the wrong, this recovers a little of respect i had on you all and that was lost in the last hours. Some of you i used to hold at high standards of trust, but this trust was lost today but recovered (if only a little of it) with your replies to this misconduct case.
I am not going to say that i am sorry for banning you guys, because i am not. You were asking for it, and once the ban-stick started to be used the whole situation calmed down, thus serving it's purpose even if not for the entire length of the ban. In the future, i hope you guys think about your actions before starting or escalating drama. --People's Commissar Hagnat [cloned] [mod] 02:00, 16 September 2007 (BST)
I said I was wrong- not that you weren't. And my withdrawal was conditional on you apologizing. It doesn't have to be much, I'm just asking you to acknowledge you didn't go through the proper channels, or at least that a ban was excessive. I'm not asking much. I'm just asking for you to say as little as "I'm sorry for overreacting" and for the ban to be cleared off the Vandal Data page and replaced with a warning. The whole thing could end in a minute if you do that. Nalikill 02:04, 16 September 2007 (BST)
sorry nalikill, but i am not fake enough to tell i am sorry when i am not. --People's Commissar Hagnat [cloned] [mod] 02:06, 16 September 2007 (BST)
Okay, then, I respect that. However:I am a man of my word. I do not withdraw my part of the charges, if ever I had the ability to do so. However, neither will I present evidence, or argue against you. I respect you enough to let the sysops do their duty without butting in. I hope this means there is no further animosity between us? Nalikill 02:09, 16 September 2007 (BST)
i'll downgrade your vandal data to warnings if that's what you meant. That is something i might have overreacted. And i have lost a lot of trust in you and others today, and that will be hard to be restored. --People's Commissar Hagnat [cloned] [mod] 02:14, 16 September 2007 (BST)
Okay, okay. If you'll make that concession...then I'll do whatever is in my power to get these charges dropped. You'd need to tell me how to do that, though. Nalikill 02:17, 16 September 2007 (BST)
Vista is rading this, and it seems he will give the final ruing on this. Just wait for him to decide on this now. --People's Commissar Hagnat [cloned] [mod] 02:23, 16 September 2007 (BST)
As long as you warn me before banning me next time, please.--Seventythree 02:02, 16 September 2007 (BST)
i can't promise that, but i'll try ;) --People's Commissar Hagnat [cloned] [mod] 02:05, 16 September 2007 (BST)
That's all I ask. That and people stop sniping at each other through the admin pages. --Seventythree 02:06, 16 September 2007 (BST)
K. I don't get it. Have I got a ban, or a warning? Or what?--Seventythree 02:15, 16 September 2007 (BST)
both of you got only a warning. --People's Commissar Hagnat [cloned] [mod] 02:19, 16 September 2007 (BST)
Actually, see vandal banning You don't get to rule on your own reported case. especially not while it is in vandal banning. You know that hagnat.-- Vista  +1  02:25, 16 September 2007 (BST)
where am i ruling anything ? you said in the vandal report that they would only get a warning and forgot to update the vandal data page, i was only telling him that. --People's Commissar Hagnat [cloned] [mod] 02:29, 16 September 2007 (BST)

This seems like misconduct to me. The timeline:

20.31 Seventythree puts up Deletions entry.
20.32 Hagnat removes Deletions entry.
20:34 Nalikill puts up deletions entry.
20:35 Nalikill votes.
20:35 Seventythree votes.
20:37 Hagnat puts Seventythree and Nalikill on the vandal banning page.
20:40 Hagnat removes deletions entry.
20.41 Nalikill puts up deletions entry.
20:49 Hagnat Blocks Seventythree
20:50 Hagnat Blocks Nalikill
20.56 Hagnat removes deletions entry.

First of all, we've always been lenient with joke entries like these. Like when saromu started fake arbitration cases during a just as drama intense period we did not warn him, even though he was admonished several times while he continued to create drama. This simply wasn't as severe to warrant the equivalent of 3 warning for Seventythree and two warnings for Nalikill. The subject in question was not time sensitive nor particular damaged. Both relevant edits of Seventythree were before Hagnat had reported them, and no comment about vandalism had been made by yet Hagnat towards him. Nalikill's double reversion of Hagnats removal can be considered more troublesome, however it was clear that Nalikill although acting wrongly he did so in good faith. Still after Hagnat twice removed the entry it should have been clear that prolonging a edit war over an entry clearly made to make a point instead of a serious deletion request was not constructive editing.

Banning both was simply an overreaction. Making that ban for a day doubly so. Hagnat should have either told them to stop, which he neglected completely or reported them to vandal banning and let another sysop handle it. Temporally protecting the page was also an option as it was clear that both were not randomly vandalizing the wiki. Both users have a long history on this wiki here that makes it very clear that they are open to reason. Simply banning two long time users for a day without any input from any other sysop is clearly misconduct. Multiple warning in a single case have never been made by the reporting party, not have they ever been awarded to for such a trivial matter.

Traditionally when users were wrongfully banned the sysop was ordered or even elected himself to take that ban for himself. I think that this would be a good tradition to follow here. Anybody else?-- Vista  +1  02:36, 16 September 2007 (BST)

As one of the "aggreived" here, I think I speak for Nalikill (he's bound to correct me if i'm wrong!) as well when I say that the entire plan of this was to draw attention to the crippling levels of drama and general nastieness that seems to have massively increased on the Admin pages recently. PErsonaly I would prefer a solution that means there is no way any more drama could be dragged out of this.--Seventythree 02:54, 16 September 2007 (BST)
vista, read my first comment made at 01:27 and the second one at 02:00, and all that we had talked about in here. They admit they were in the wrong, the bans served their purpose and downgraded to warnings. If the situation kept on going without the ban stick this discussion would still be happening now. --People's Commissar Hagnat [cloned] [mod] 02:45, 16 September 2007 (BST)
You did not try to be reasonable, you didn't contact them, you didn't give them a warning, you didn't protect the page, you didn't even give them a short "time out" ban, you simply placed them at the third step of escalation right away. That would mean they would've gotten banned for two days the next time, and a week after that, while just one of them would have gotten a single day ban normally. Just because you didn't feel like trying the less severe variants. How is that correct?
To claim that it worked is not a defense, me parmabanning everybody would works as well and you giving a warning would have worked as well. There are very clear rules about this and you broke them. the fact that later other people stepped in and corrected your decision doesn't mean it was correct from the beginning. That is ridiculous. The fact that they were fools, doesn't mean you get to break the rules needlessly. The bans weren't needed and you didn't even try the normal route. You gave them a far too severe punishment that wasn't needed without asking the input of another sysop like you should've done. Yes they admitted that what they did was stupid, but their action clearly didn't merit an unilaterally given day long ban, so how makes that your actions O.K.?
Look I can understand you were under pressure and that you made a mistake, but the fact that you can't even see that you actually did make a big mistake has me worried. as well as you cite the fact that because other stepped in and corrected your mistakes that there was no foul. If your verdict wasn't so widly of the mark, there wouldn't have been a reason to deban them and to downgrade their record. We don't place people halfway through the vandal banning escalation to a permaban for no reason other then annoyance. That would be misconduct. Now as both Nalikill and Seventythree seem to want to end this with as little fuss as possible you may do what you seems best as long as no other sysop disagrees for all I care, but keep in mind that what you did was misconduct and that you broke both the letter and the spirit of the rule.-- Vista  +1  04:29, 16 September 2007 (BST)
As your time line illustrates the shenanigans continued until the ban was put in place. You recommend protecting the deletions page. Is that any less foolish than deleting it? There is no need to halt administration services due to vandalism. I do not believe you have logically analyzed the data you have collected or provided a reasonable method for dealing with similar situations in the future. --Max Grivas JG / M.F.T. 05:51, 16 September 2007 (BST)
As the time line makes clear, 73 had stopped editing that page long before Hagnat banned him. As for protecting the page, how on earth is it protecting a page for ten minutes to remove the offending edits and to friendly warn the well known editor of his mistake similar to deleting the page? This is something that we have done in the past and that has worked well. I also gave other options that didn't include banning two users for a day, one who had already stopped editing a half hour before the ban, and who both have shown to be reasonable editors when confronted directly? It is obvious that you misread my comment severely.-- Vista  +1  06:55, 16 September 2007 (BST)
Im going to have to chime in here. I was around for the start of the drama, but had to retire to bed just as the deletions thing was happening, however, i need to point out that we have a precident for actions like hagnats, where people who are actively vandalising despite reverts can be banned, so they stop their vandalism and make the cleanup easier on everyone. There is, however, nothing about how long those bans can be, but i feel 24 hours is a good round number. --The Grimch U! 06:13, 16 September 2007 (BST)
There is indeed precedent for a temporary ban. But that's not what Hagnat did, he gave them a 1 day ban, and recorded it on A/VD as such. And a 1 day ban is a huge step up from no warnings. What should have happened is that Nalikill got a few hours ban to cool down (such a ban wouldn't effect his A/VD record) and 73 got reported (I can't see where he got into an edit war at all with Hagnat The preceding signed comment was added by boxy (talk • contribs) at 06:48 16 September 2007 (BST)
precedent actually does specify a length. It's always held that such a ban should be as short as possible to stop their vandalism and make the cleanup easier on everyone. It's clear that you don't need 24 hours to do so. That would be a deliberate perversion of the banning rules. Also 73 stopped editing long before he was banned and thus wasn't involved in active vandalism at all. the only two reversions were made by Nalikill. And as Boxy stated Hagnat didn't give them a just a time out but just made them jump from no warning and a single warning to the third step of escalation. That is just excessive, that would mean two editors one who had no warning at all and one that had only a single warning suddenly jumped halfway to getting a permaban. Hagnat was being extremely excessive, especially as we've tolerated this sort of behavior form other editors before, without even any warnings. I just fail to see how this could be anything else then misconduct, even in the most positive of explanations.-- Vista  +1  06:55, 16 September 2007 (BST)
I still do not see 20:49-20:41 equaling a half hour. I do now see that by recording the ban to A/VD subsequent actions would stack against it and concur that that is not the precedent I was working from nor want to set. Thank you for clearing that point up. Would an acceptable solution have been to note the action of banning under the vandalism report space along with a request for additional sysops assistance? Limiting the wider communities access to the page would not have been a solution I would have chosen myself is the only reason I am asking for further clarification. Thank you for helping me understand the situation better. --Max Grivas JG / M.F.T. 07:29, 16 September 2007 (BST)
Well I did specifically mentioned 73 not Nalikill for that. But I do notice I read it wrong, he wasn't not inactive for half but for quarter of an hour since he voted at 20:35, and It still remains that he was not involved first reversions of Hagnats edits or in his the second reversions. Anymore then A Helpful Little Gnome, Pavluk and Suicidalangel were. He didn't hinder Hagnats clean up actions at all. As for a time-outs should be noted on the vandal banning and the vandal data page as such and always be as short as reasonably possible. And a complete day is always excessive. As it's the same time as the third step in the vandal banning escalation three a temporary time out of a day is actually a full-time time out. That long is nothing more then hidden way to start swinging the ban hammer right away because the person would get both a full time ban as well as a warning you'd normally get. It's effects would be indistinguishable from a real ban. A temporary time out is there to clean up the damage and to make sure you can start up a reasonable conversation with the offender without having to worry about doing both at the same time. One or two hours should always be more then enough, especially as these two were known members of the community. In fact 15 minutes would've been enough in this case. I doubt that Hagnat needed more then a single comment to start a conversation and to stop all this.
I do share your reluctance to cut off communities access to a page, But I do think it's superior choice in this situation where the damage was limited and localized on one page. There no pages so frequently edited that a half hour protection would cause more then a extremely minor hick-up. All edits on the page between 19.48 and 01.17 were the edits on the deletion entry. If the page was protected the page from the second reversion onwards, there would've been a more then 4 hours window before anybody would have been inconvenienced. It clear it could've been unprotected a lot sooner then that. In the end it's a personal choice though, thats why I also listed a short time out as a possibility. If hagnat had given them a two hour time-out ban just to give them a warning and to get things in order I can't see how anybody would have ruled it misconduct. 73's time-out would have been on the prudent side, but not so strange to be more then that. As long as a time out is not constructed as an alternative form of punishment it's well within established precedent.-- Vista  +1  08:41, 16 September 2007 (BST)
First of all Vista, The 48 hour and 1 week bans are the half way point. Secondly, he didnt log warnings, so they still had those to be knocked out in any future vandal cases against them (Hell, if you look way back into the dark recesses of time on the logs, specifically november 05, you will see ive had a 24 hour ban against me, does that mean that the warnings, which are long expired by now, are still lurking there so my next offense (HA!) pute me to 48 hours?). This is a far cry from sending them half way to perma, as you so exaggerate it. I like a 24 hour ban for constant vandalism in the face of reverts. A 1-2 hour ban is unlikely to stop them for any longer than the 1-2 hours they cant post. A 24 hour ban is a nice length that gives them a day to think things over while everyone fixes the mess they have made, and the 24 hour ban means that, unless it is a seriously divisive and dramafied topic of discussion, it will have blown over by the time they get back, and the drama would be finished. Oh, and FYI: We have precident for how to deal with misconduct cases where multiple sysops disagree with how to deal with the problem: Popular sysop vote, based on all the possible outcomes of the case. (Not misconduct, Misconduct, Certain punishment (Reason), Misconduct, other punishment (Reason)). Id like to see us try and reason this out before going to that step though. --The Grimch U! 07:41, 16 September 2007 (BST)
Grim, what edits of Seventythree's deserved a "time out" ban? Sure, he shouldn't have put the deletions page up for deletions... it deserved reporting. But as far as I can see, he never got into an edit war with Hagnat or anyone else. Nalikill deserved what he got, as far as I'm conserned, and I'd record, on A/VD, the 3hr ban he ended up serving The preceding signed comment was added by boxy (talk • contribs) at 09:03 16 September 2007 (BST)
Warning, Warning, 1 Day ban, 2 Day ban, 1 week ban, 1 month ban, 1 year ban, permanent ban...
You are quite right, It's only 3/8 towards a permanent ban instead of 4/8. forgive me my rhetorical flourish. my sincerest apology. And as your indiscretion was never registered on vandal data and long since purged from the history I fully congratulate you on your wicked gaming of the system. Bravo! It also happened before we went over to the current system but what the hey it's still special, not relevant but still special. As for your defense that he didn't actually mean it like a multiple warnings as he didn't log the actual warnings you should off course overlook the fact that he consistently talked about it as such,

in several occasions users got two or more warnings for a single action. This always decided based on the gravity of their actions. I made a judgment call, and decided that a 24h would help them calm their heads, realize that nothing would be gained by following their track of actions, and give us space to carry on with our business. I had reverted the article 3 times to its original form, but they kept adding the deletion request for the deletions page. Even when i filled this vandalism report they displayed no interest in stopping this whole thing, so the only way was to temporarily revoke their rights to edit this wiki.

Which is of course bull as 73 didn't revert at all, their action weren't all that severe, there had been only 2 reversions by Nalikill in total. and the two reversion Hagant had made didn't include any mention to it being vandalism, only to it not being funny. But any way he clearly mentioned the warnings there.

i'll downgrade your vandal data to warnings if that's what you meant. That is something i might have overreacted. And i have lost a lot of trust in you and others today, and that will be hard to be restored. --hagnattalk mod vote! 02:14, 16 September 2007 (BST)

As he does there, right on this page! Goody! I'll give a puppy if you can find the last comment where he made the same comment. Now he could have meant it differently of course, but you understand that the way he says it leaves it open to my interpretation. As well as that we are usually in the habit to noting it on vandal data page when an entry is out of the ordinary ranks of progression. And yes I do remember times that we continued with the escalation banning while we had no clue where the warnings had went to.
I'm very happy for you that you like 24 hour bans for a specific case, yet I don't understand how that is relevant. It doesn't exist at the moment and even if it did it wouldn't matter as it was used against 73 who hadn't actually done any reversions. You could argue that Nalikill qualified with his giganormous amount of reversions, (two). And that the a single reversion of Nalikill's Hagnats clear denouncement of "hahahaha, not funny" was indeed worth reporting instead of actually asking them. However there can't be a doubt that first of all, this is not funny... second of all, even if this was for deletions.. then it would take a policy discussion to change the ways pages are deleted is more clearer then his first but hardly telling them to stop, that it is vandalism, that if they continue he's going to ban them. in fact not even referencing his sysop powers at all. Hell you might not even need a 24 hour freestyle ban for punishing reversions of vandalism if you remeber to tell the person that it could be vandalism. It's novel doing that, but it might just be worth a try.
I also was very happy with your assurance that A 1-2 hour ban is unlikely to stop them for any longer than the 1-2 hours they cant post. Boy, am I glad I only unbanned them after three hours. If I had been but an hour earlier 73 and Nalikill could very well have destroyed the wiki instead of leaving a couple of polite comments saying that what they did was not as smart as it should have been and that Hagnat shouldn't get into trouble for his overreaction. I shudder what my carelessness could have wrought. we need that 24 hour ban NOW! Who cares that it is an alternative ban outside the current system that we basically have no need for at all, as new user who would do this get banned immediately and permanently as vandal accounts and old users who would do this already have a track record and gets banned to the usual system. Of course we wouldn't have something for the few users who are both well known in the community and don't have a track record of vandalism, but you know, we could try talking to them or giving them a warning. Maybe that could do the trick, It so crazy it could work!
Now if you really want to start a query under the sysops if him banning multiple persons for a day outside the normal procedure for reason that simply are either overblown or completely non-existant, without trying to talk to them or notifying them is perfectly o.k. I'm fine with that. Why not! Why further drone on about this fricking non-case My entry would be. Misconduct: because he bloody well lost it completely. Resulting punishment: Up to hagnat himself as nobody cares if he gets a tap on the wrist or not as long as we are clear on the bleeping procedures and what is a right reaction and what is just a plain overblown bullshit.
No if I offended you with my somewhat angry response, I'm sorry. I've spend 8 hours on this idiocy while I should be sleeping while it is the most ridicules open and shut case we've had while there are no penalties connected to it at all for hagnat except that people would think he made a mistake. Whoopdi-fucking-DOO, everybody makes mistakes. I've made the mistake of spending 8 hours on this garbage. So sorry but I'm too annoyed with this to care. I like and respect you grim as I do like and respect Hagnat. but I'm feeling there's been enough time spend on this crap nothing personal.-- Vista  +1  10:18, 16 September 2007 (BST)
You dont need to apologise for how you have expressed yourself. I have been worse on this wiki and elsewhere, and it would be pretty downright hypocritical of me to get upset at you expressing yourself. In any case, you are correct about the 73 part of it, and that is misconduct on his part (Though im leaning towards saying thats a mistake on his part. Heat of the moment sort out the problem thing). 73 shouldnt have been banned at all, but Nalikill had it coming. He was repeatedly reverting to restore what is vandalism on this wiki. In any case, the 24 hour ban, even in just being issued, carries a certain gravity. Subsequent lifting by someone else, regardless of how much time has gone by, does not lift the seriousness of the message sent. The reason i support a good 24 hour ban is so that it can snuff the drama out. Drama takes a while to die, and just removing people for a few hours will usually change nothing. I would argue that anything up to and including a 24 hour ban could be used, depending on the extent and severity of the conflict in progress. --The Grimch U! 11:10, 16 September 2007 (BST)
Looking over the logs, I'm basically convinced of the following: 1- SeventyThree probably deserves a warning for what ammounts to a bad-faith "humerous suggestion"-style report. Ha! Ha! Fake reports were unfunny forever ago. I'm not super-hip for said concequence here, but the assumption is the basis for the underlying opinions. 2- Nalikill continuously reverting an administration page vandalism of Hagnat deserves a warning, and a temp ban for the continued reverting. 3- SeventyThree being caught in the cross-fire of the temp ban actions was Misconduct, but the same is not said for Nalikill. 4- Both SeventyThree and Nalikill being report-warned by Hagnat was Misconduct; we don't tolerate strong-arm SysOp tactics on the wiki.
My suggestions for the punishments are as follows- 2 warnings for the report-warns on the users and a non-vandal appliciable 24hr ban for misconduct for the temp ban on SeventyThree. Also, I would submit that SeventyThree be given a non-official warning as to not "humor-up" Administration pages, concequences being Double-Warnings for said actions: It wouldn't effect any future non-applicable cases. We have to believe that what SeventyThree did was Bad Faith, elsewise hagnat would be up for larger penalties for removing a Deletion case and temp-banning a user over their attempts to revert said bad-faith removal. --Karlsbad 09:54, 16 September 2007 (BST)
Just as a tip, report-ban by the same Sysop is allowed by the current guidelines (I wrote that part myself in Xoid's request). It still is, however, a bad thing to do when you are heated up or something is affecting your judgement. Look here for this change on the old guidelines. --Matthew Fahrenheit YRC☺T☺+1 14:25, 16 September 2007 (BST)

hagnat's self punishment idea

I have this nice idea for a way to settle this case... instead of serving ban time, being warned or called a naughty boy, i'll place myself in the promotions page. If i fail to get enough vouches for me, i lose my sysop powers for a whole month. That would give the right feedback of the community in this case, not the opinion of a single user. If i win, not only will i keep my moderation powers, but Vista will have to admit that my actions were right in the heat of the moment. I also win this bet if i win the Bureaucrat Promotions. I am behind Vista on this voting proccess, and there is only 4 days remaining on it, so i guess its fair. And i promise that I wont ask anyone to vote for me on this. --People's Commissar Hagnat [cloned] [mod] 17:54, 16 September 2007 (BST)

Makes sense. --Seventythree 17:55, 16 September 2007 (BST)
Sorry Hagnat, but that's not a punishment. You'd get in easily, but not because you were right in this case. I suggest a self imposed 3 hour ban (being the approximate time 73 was banned for before it being overturned) as punishment for the one case of overstepping the bounds, in that you banned 73 despite there being no need for it (he wasn't reverting your decisions). If you're not comfortable with admitting to that, then a vote of the other sysops to decide misconduct or not should be held, with the punishment being a warning and a 23hr ban (IMO) The preceding signed comment was added by boxy (talk • contribs) at 09:54 17 September 2007 (BST)
while i could do good use of some time out to focus on some RL stuff, i dont like the idea of being banned from the wiki as punishment for something wrong that i havent done. --People's Commissar Hagnat [cloned] [mod] 14:33, 17 September 2007 (BST)
You pretty much admitted, on the talk page, that it might have been wrong to ban 73, saying it was heat of the moment that led to it. While I sympathise, having read some of the stuff that went on during the hours leading up to this incident, there needs to be some comeback for an abuse of admin privileges as serious as a wrongful ban, I'm afraid. And taking an equivalent ban to the one wrongly served by 73 is the minimum that should happen. I only expect the minimum because the "aggrieved party" doesn't want to pursue it. If you're not willing to submit to that, then we'll have to got to a vote, given that no-one seems to be changing their opinions The preceding signed comment was added by boxy (talk • contribs) at 15:31 17 September 2007 (BST)
mistakes are not abuse. I might have been wrong to ban him, but i was in no way abusing from my powers as a sysop for my own personal gain. --People's Commissar Hagnat [cloned] [mod] 15:44, 17 September 2007 (BST)
Misconduct, Hagnat, is wrongful use of your powers. your own personal gain has nothing to do with it. You felt under presure, you became careless and made a mistake. The reason that it is a problem is because you did something that was against the rules we use as sysop instead of simply making a wrong descision based on the rule we have. That is the meaning of misconduct. Breaking the rules instead or grossly misapplying them. That it was in the heat of the moment and not for your personal gain his nothing to do with it being misconduct. It does have something to do with the resulting punishment. And because everybody here is completely convinced that it was a mistake nobody here is arguing for your head. Boxy is arguing for a 3 hour ban just like the users got wrongfully and I think that that should be up to your own consience as both user don't want to drag it on any further. This simular to what you yourself gave me when I mistakenly gave springfaxi or whatever his name was a ban. All I want it that it is clear for everybody that banning users for a day as an alternative punishment just because we want to is outside our powers and for you to realize that yes you did something you weren't supposed to. Big deal, everybody makes mistakes, some minor some major, but you are acting like your actions were merited while they clearly weren't, That is what I take issue with, A. were not allowed to ban people for a day outside the normal banning procedure b. even if we were this situation clearly didn't merit it.-- Vista  +1  16:04, 17 September 2007 (BST)
Im going to have to agree. Misconduct, but only for the banning of seventythree. I completely understand why you did it, but we cant just let it go. Im for a self imposed three hour ban, to be imposed on yourself any time in the next 24 hours. --The Grimch U! E! 16:14, 17 September 2007 (BST)
Actually the misconduct should also include Nalikill's ban of 24 hours. while I can understand that some sysops would like a 24 hour for certain cases (I don't see the need). It's not in the rules and never been in the rules not in any precedent. If people wan't such a ban it should be introduced trough a policy discussion not created out of thin air, we don't do that anymore.-- Vista  +1  16:20, 17 September 2007 (BST)
And i maintain that the banning of Nalikill was quite valid given his behaviour, and that 24 hours, while it may seem extreme to you, was a fair decision, especially given his conduct before and during the event in question. --The Grimch U! E! 16:28, 17 September 2007 (BST)
I agree with Grim, and it was a single step along the vandal banning path. If he earned a further warnings, they would count as his first warning, and then second warning, and then the next step would have been 48hrs (as 24 was already taken), meaning that that ban was the equivalent of a warning, just that it stopped the ongoing vandalism The preceding signed comment was added by boxy (talk • contribs) at 16:36 17 September 2007 (BST)
There are surely good ways to implement such rules, that's why we have policy discussions. A lot of good possible actions aren't in the rules, this might be one of them. but we can't create one out of thin air, it's a big alteration of our current rules on how we ban people. It's not in the current rules, nor in any precedent. So it should be introduced via the policy page. That's what it is there for. We've had a lot of good rules introduced via that page this could be one of them. What we can't do is pretend that it was a rule that already excisted as that isn't the case. a rule simular to wikipedia's 3RR rule might very well work here. But we don't yet have one, and it should still need to pass policy discussion and not be introduced in a misconduct case, no matter what I think of it. This simply isn't the right place.-- Vista  +1  17:15, 17 September 2007 (BST)

Stuff moved to talk page. Vista said dont post unless you are a sysop, Nalikill or Seventythree. Please dont. --The Grimch U! E! 09:42, 17 September 2007 (BST)

Look, the 4 of us involved from the start (Vista, Seventythree, Nalikill and Hagnat) have come to two conclusions. 1)It was dumb of me and Nalikill to put the deltions page up for deletions, and then further defend it. 2)Hagnat may have "jumped the gun" a little in banning us for it. Speaking for myself I have no interest in having some kind of feud with Hagnat, I've got no axe to grind. I can't speak for Nalikill as well, but He's a reasonable guy, as we a ll are here, adn I'm damn sure he wouldn't want this dragged out any longer. Vista has stated that he beleives that Hagnat was in the wrong, and I think that hagnat has at least admitted the possiblility that he may have been a little out of line in his actions. To be honset, the main thing all four of us realy want to see, as far as I can gather is this whole sorry affair ended and wrapped up as soon as possible. How about we all agree that ne and Nalikill where wrong to do what we did (however well intentioned, or ill intentioned) and Hagnat was wrong to ban us from the word go and leave it at that? just have a little section below where we all admit what we did was wrong and apologise, then it's all over. I realy don't see what the point of a punishment would do here, apart from creating more bad blood.--Seventythree 07:52, 17 September 2007 (BST)

Vote

As there is no consensus amongst the sysops on this case, I feel a vote is the best way to resolve this in a timely manner.

Hagnat is charged with misconduct for attempting to ban Seventythree for a day, as evident in the block logs, the A/VB case and in the A/VD history, despite the fact that at no time did seventythree try to restore Hagnat's deletion of his mock deletions application. All other active sysops are asked to vote for or against the misconduct charge within the next 5 days. If found to be misconduct, Hagnat will receive a warning and a 23hr ban as punishment punishment decided by the majority (please state preferred punishment in vote. (edited after discussion on talk page 09:50, 18 September 2007 (BST))

This vote to become invalid if Hagnat decides to take the option to impose a voluntary 3 hr ban on himself anytime within the next 23hrs --boxy 16:41, 17 September 2007 (BST)

Er... if guilty, he gets a 23 hour ban? Where did you get that number from? Brain fart with the time remaining for him to claim guilt? --The Grimch U! E! 16:49, 17 September 2007 (BST)
If it were 24hrs it's another step along the VD path. 23hrs is pretty much the same, only it doesn't take the 24hr slot -- boxy • talk • 16:54 17 September 2007 (BST)
Sorry boxy, but i felt that i had not abused from my sysop powers. If i ban myself on the charges presented in this case i am assuming that i had broken the trust this community have on me. --People's Commissar Hagnat [cloned] [mod] 17:47, 17 September 2007 (BST)

The proposed punishment is absurd. 3 hours, tops, is fair. --The Grimch U! E! 17:55, 17 September 2007 (BST)

Misconduct + 23h ban
Misconduct + Other punishment OR up to Hagnat himself
  1. misconduct. a 24 hour ban is both excessive and not in the rules. It was clear that 73 was not reverting the edits. a mistake is easily made but hagnat could have easily checked it, even after he had banned 73 and reversed himself. He carelessly banned people without the nessecary caution before or afterwards.-- Vista  +1  17:53, 17 September 2007 (BST) I was asked to specify what consequence the misconduct should have. I have no preference and would like Hagnat to decide that for himself. if that isn't an option I'll go with the average result of the misconduct voters rulings just so we can end all this, currently that seems to be an 3 hour ban.-- Evil  Vista  13:08, 20 September 2007 (BST)
  2. Misconduct - 73 should not have been banned, yet a warning for Hagnat should suffice. --ZombieSlay3rSig.pngT 18:07, 17 September 2007 (BST)
  3. Misconduct - what Vandar said, except Poor Form is Misconduct. --Karlsbad 04:00, 18 September 2007 (BST)
    Punishment: a Warning, in addition to any ban agreed to by Hagnat. --Karlsbad 01:51, 21 September 2007 (BST)
  4. Misconduct - The only thing that could have been misconduct was the banning of Seventythree, and even then, it was completely understandable given the amount of provocation in the case he had recieved. 3 hour ban tops, warning minimum. --The Grimch U! E! 07:25, 18 September 2007 (BST)
  5. Misconduct - It was clearly against policy, and also unnecessary to ban Seventythree, although there were mitigating circumstances. Warning and at least a 3 hr ban -- boxy • talk • 09:50 18 September 2007 (BST)
  6. Misconduct - I'm of the opinion that he deserves warning and 3 hour ban, but not more. --Darth Sensitive Talk W! 16:47, 20 September 2007 (BST)


Hay Guys, whutz cummin on ? Cya in the flip side. --People's Commissar Hagnat [cloned] [mod] 00:13, 21 September 2007 (BST)
Hay guys, i am back! Did ya miss meeee ? --People's Commissar Hagnat [cloned] [mod] 05:29, 21 September 2007 (BST)
For anyone that havent noticed it... i have already warned and banned myself for 3h. Thank you. Case over. --People's Commissar Hagnat [cloned] [mod] 05:29, 21 September 2007 (BST)
Not Misconduct
  1. Not Misconduct I can see how the guidelines could be used to defend this action, it may have been poor form to ban seventythree but not misconduct, the best course of action would be to learn from this and move on - Vantar 17:28, 17 September 2007 (BST)
  2. Not misconduct - They kept putting it back after he removed it. They earned a temp-ban. One-liner, woohoo.--Thari TжFedCom is BFI! 05:23, 17 September 2007 (BST)
  3. Not Misconduct - as above. And what Vantar said. --Max Grivas JG / M.F.T. 21:20, 17 September 2007 (BST)

Final note

Hagnat warned himself and banned himself for three hours, as requested by the vote. --The Grimch U! E! 09:31, 21 September 2007 (BST)

2007, June 30

Hagtnat has given me a unfair warning.

When a made a news updated and archived old news on the Shackelville page Jorm undid it all.I then posted a message to Jorm who further on posted it to the vandal banning section.Now I was asked to stop posting message of a chilish nature before on Jorms page which I did.But when I posted a serious message I should not get warning.

Here is the first one.

Further more on a Arbitration case where I tried to get a disambiguation for Mob. One leading to both Malton Mob and Militant Order of Barhar. He unfairly continued to let any one going to MOB/Mob still be re-directed to Militant Order of Barhar and having the person searching having to click on other uses which then lead to the the disambiguation. He is a known for being Pro Zombie. One argument was Militant Order of Barhar was more known and larger. Now even though the more known part cant be proven and the numbers are legitamite a proper disambiguation was made for Crossman defense force and Creedy bank defense force besides the fact that Crossman is very little known off them and that the are small compared to Creedy.

here is the example.

Seloth 00.19, 30th June 2007 ((GMT))

The Crossman Defense Force is something arcane for your knowledge, young one. Its a group only known for the old dinosaurs of the wiki know, and in the past they were most (un)famous than any other group, matching only the fame of other great groups, like the RRF and C4NT. Unlike the MOB redirection, this redirect was ALWAYS there, pointing to the disambiguation page.
As much as I am pro-zombie, I always do my work in the most neutral fashion (some cases excluded) in order to preserve what is RIGHT and what is FUN in the wiki. Your little drama doesn't fit in any of these categories.
We already asked you not to edit Jorm's page, and the comments you added on Shackleville are nothing but pure POV... annoying, childish, POV. I just added a really NPOV comment in that suburb page, I hope you don't change with your annoying comments. --People's Commissar Hagnat [cloned] [mod] 03:05, 30 June 2007 (BST)
I don't see any misconduct here... but as my opinion doesn't officially count I'll call it throwing in my two cents. Hagnat told you to stop editing Jorm's talk page full stop. That means no messages of any kind.
The reason MOB wasn't made a disambig page was because it is an acronym of Militant Order of Barhah. It is not an acronym of Malton Mob - and the group who the acronym belongs to gets precedence. --Cyberbob DORIS CGR U! 04:52, 30 June 2007 (BST)

Not misconduct, this looks like childish payback just because you couldn't get the type of disambig page you demanded. There is a link to your page on the top of both of those pages -- boxy T L ZS Nuts2U DA 08:52, 30 June 2007 (BST)

Seconded, Seloth had ample warning that continued antagonising behaviour towards Jorm and the Militant Order of Barhar would be bordering on bad faith. Hagnat made a judgement call on the vandalism report that stayed within the normal boundaries. The Arbitration case was handled according to the rules and resulted in a workable solution that unfortunately didn't satisfy everybody. But arbitration isn't meant to satisfy everybody, it's meant to resolve editing conflicts. I believe this may be archived now.-- Vista  +1  20:06, 30 June 2007 (BST)
PS, It may be time to remake the CDF disambiguation situation to resembling the MOB situation., as the Crossman CDF is now nowhere as known as the creedy CDF anymore-- Vista  +1  20:09, 30 June 2007 (BST)

2007, January 24

Edited a protected page with the specific goal of violating the conditions outlined in the M/PT application. --Hubrid Nox Mod WTF U! B! 15:08, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

I asked politely in the protections page that i would like another mod to rule in this protection case, since you and gage had already showed interest in keeping that page in one status while i had desire to kept it as it were before. This protection was a conflict of interest, and you know it. Actually, you are the one who should be brought in for misconduct, since you edited the page AFTER it was protected in the first place :). --People's Commissar Hagnat [cloned] [mod] 15:10, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
MISCONBITRATION! OH NOES !!!1!!ELEVEN!!11! --People's Commissar Hagnat [cloned] [mod] 15:12, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
And, as a side note, i think that neither xoid or gage should rule on this... since, you know, conflict of iterest and stuff... :) --People's Commissar Hagnat [cloned] [mod] 15:14, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
HURR. The edit I made was to bring the page back in line with the decision. --Hubrid Nox Mod WTF U! B! 15:15, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
Not my fault... --People's Commissar Hagnat [cloned] [mod] 15:18, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
Yes, it is, because you were the one who took it out of line with the decision. --Hubrid Nox Mod WTF U! B! 15:23, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
Personally, I think this case should be burninated. You're either both at fault (Cyberbob ruling when he shouldn't have, you unilaterally causing more problems by directly working against that official (like it or not, it was) ruling instead of bringing it either here, or convincing Cyberbob to drop it.) or neither of you are. –Xoid M•T•FU! 15:35, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
I wouldn't be averse to that, actually - Hagnat will need all his strength for that Arbitration case. I'm not totally inconsiderate. --Hubrid Nox Mod WTF U! B! 15:38, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

He did it again. --Hubrid Nox Mod WTF U! B! 15:25, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Mommy, mommy.. he did it again... mommy!!! Bah! I did it again because you are constantly changing it back... i already told you that you have interest in this case, therefore you are unable to rule on something there... if another mod rules in this, i will gladly stop reverting it . --People's Commissar Hagnat [cloned] [mod] 15:30, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
Every time you do it, you're only digging yourself in deeper... --Hubrid Nox Mod WTF U! B! 15:32, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
Yet when three other mods called your decision on that page's direction stupid and proceeded to revert it, you decided to continue being a douche. –Xoid M•T•FU! 15:35, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Someone can archive this, if they wish... I don't really care about it anymore. It's not worth the drama. --Hubrid Nox Mod WTF U! B! 15:49, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://wiki.urbandead.com//index.php?title=UDWiki:Administration/Misconduct/Archive/Hagnat/2007&oldid=1810063"