UDWiki:Administration/Misconduct/Archive/Hagnat/2008

From The Urban Dead Wiki
Jump to navigationJump to search

Administration » Misconduct » Archive » Hagnat » 2008

2008, December 21

The Administration Guidelines serve to regulate the conduct of sysops using their powers as trusted users. They contain many clauses designed to prevent sysops having to take sides in disagreements. These clauses are clear and leave no room for interpretation.

One such clause is:

In the event of protection, a system operator is expected to protect the page in whatever state the page was in at the time the request is reviewed, regardless of its original state. - Emphasis from the original document

In the procedure to protect, S.O.S. Hagnat ignored this clause and intentionally chose a side, in this case reverting to a contentious edit.ot

Not only is this in breach of Administration Guidelines regarding the protection of pages, but the procedures regarding Arbitration are clear. They are that the contentious edit should be removed for the duration of the case, Hagnat's actions go contrary to this procedure as well.

Hagnat stated during his most recent promotion bid that he would no longer 'mod' the wiki, he was clearly lying. -- To know the face of God is to know madness....Praise knowledge! Mischief! Mayhem! The Rogues Gallery!. <== DDR Approved Editor 02:33, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

He has continued this behaviour by unilaterally deciding the content of the page whilst it is under protection. -- To know the face of God is to know madness....Praise knowledge! Mischief! Mayhem! The Rogues Gallery!. <== DDR Approved Editor 02:36, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

First of all, i should've protected the page as in the moment of the request, and so i did. I was following due process in there since you were the one who started the revert war, not boxy, therefore its HIS edit that is valid for the duration of the arbitration case, rather than yours. Since the revert war begun when boxy removed the entire section, i dont see how i acted in bad faith here. And where the fuck did i said that i werent gonna mod the wiki ? Putting words in my mount, iscariot ? --People's Commissar Hagnat talk mod 02:46, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Now I know you have problems with English, but reviewed is clear, it does not mean when the requested was entered, it's when the the protecting sysop looks at the A/P page. But good luck in trying to rewrite the language I know better than you to make yourself right here. -- To know the face of God is to know madness....Praise knowledge! Mischief! Mayhem! The Rogues Gallery!. <== DDR Approved Editor 02:56, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
spirit of the law against law by the letter again ? I like how you managed to attack me, find a weak spot in my argument, and ignore all else. Here is the thing again: You are the one who started the revert war, if the page should be kept in any status before an arbie it should be the status prior the conflicting situation. --People's Commissar Hagnat talk mod 03:01, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
Making up more 'guidelines' like the ones you wrote and unilaterally put in Admin namespace without community consensus again? You can spirit or letter as much as you like, those guidelines are there to prevent the image of sysops being partisan, something you breach with your every edit. The guideline is there to protect sysops, you breached it intentionally for personal preference. -- To know the face of God is to know madness....Praise knowledge! Mischief! Mayhem! The Rogues Gallery!. <== DDR Approved Editor 03:05, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
Actually, Hagnat, the disputed edit gets reverted for the course of a case, not the edit disputing the edit. It should be reverted to the version with the signatures.--Karekmaps?! 06:09, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
I know this, you know this, why doesn't another member of the sysop team know this? Because he makes up his rules as he goes along. Still waiting for those signatures to be put back in.... -- To know the face of God is to know madness....Praise knowledge! Mischief! Mayhem! The Rogues Gallery!. <== DDR Approved Editor 06:33, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
It's now on the right diff.--Karekmaps?! 06:39, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
And all I had to do is write a couple of thousand words and bring a misconduct case to get something that should have been done automatically? Must be a slow day on the wiki.... -- To know the face of God is to know madness....Praise knowledge! Mischief! Mayhem! The Rogues Gallery!. <== DDR Approved Editor 06:47, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
Also, you have the wrong version. Would you like me to point you to a copy of the correct one? -- To know the face of God is to know madness....Praise knowledge! Mischief! Mayhem! The Rogues Gallery!. <== DDR Approved Editor 07:27, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
Indeed I don't have time right now to dig through all of them to see where it started, I just reverted to the last undo action hagnat did with votes otherwise I'll have to copy and past the page code from an older version.--Karekmaps?! 08:35, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
The last contibution by The Hierophant was the last addition to the page. The correct reversion will include everything in the code including his post. -- To know the face of God is to know madness....Praise knowledge! Mischief! Mayhem! The Rogues Gallery!. <== DDR Approved Editor 08:39, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
It is now there.--Karekmaps?! 08:45, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
Ta muchly. -- To know the face of God is to know madness....Praise knowledge! Mischief! Mayhem! The Rogues Gallery!. <== DDR Approved Editor 08:48, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Not Misconduct Conndrakamod TAZM CFT 10:12, 30 December 2008 (UTC) Not Misconduct Conndrakamod TAZM CFT 10:12, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

^This but only because it's something that we don't often have to deal with, or at leas haven't in a long time. If it happens in the future this case is a reference point and should be used to settle any dispute over how this should be done. IF it is refused with the knowledge from this case in consideration than there is certainly a chance it could be misconduct. --Karekmaps?! 09:31, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Status

Unresolved
Pending final outcome of Arby's? Not Misconduct 1 Misconduct 0 Conndrakamod TAZM CFT 10:12, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Arbies is finished -- boxy talkteh rulz 09:59 30 December 2008 (BST)

UnresolvedResolved
Pending final outcome of Arby's? Not Misconduct 2 Misconduct 0 Regardless of that case this one has been done for a while. There's really nothing more to add.--Karekmaps?! 13:52, 30 December 2008 (UTC)


2008, June 2

Ruled on a Misconduct case in which he clearly has a vested interest. --brb, church DORIS CGR U! 13:46, 2 June 2008 (BST)

Not misconduct - everyone who agrees with the warning of users for shitting up admin pages "has a vested interest" in ruling, disallowing them from having a voice means that only people who disagree with the action may vote. An unworkable system -- boxy talki 14:20 2 June 2008 (BST)
Boxy, he's the one that brought the case against me. If that isn't a conflict of interest I don't know what is. Your representation of my position is so ridiculous as to be fairly laughable. --brb, church DORIS CGR U! 14:21, 2 June 2008 (BST)

Not misconduct and so are the day's of our lives... Conndrakamod TTBA CFT 18:15, 2 June 2008 (BST)

Conn, given your ruling on this rather similar case I'm not inclined to take your neutrality for granted. --brb, church DORIS CGR U! 22:22, 2 June 2008 (BST)
Hey... at least I'm consistent. I could understand your concern if I ruled one way for someone, and a different way for another. But if its a similar case, with similar people involved, what makes you think there should be a dissimilar result? Conndrakamod TTBA CFT 22:44, 2 June 2008 (BST)

2008, May 27th

Hypocrisy pure and simple. Hagnat rules vandalism on edits made by multiple users on A/VB (breaking the good form guideline that reporting admins should not rule except in the case of an active and persistent vandal), presumably under the 'red box' guidelines, "If you are not a System Operator, the user who made the vandal report, the user being reported, or directly involved in the case, the administration asks that you use the talk page for further discussion. Free-for-all commenting can lead to a less respectful environment."

He then removes the discussion beneath it to the talk page in direct opposition to the box he ruled vandalism with! As one of the users being reported, under the rule he warned me for I have every right to comment on the main page, also grim's comment is that of a sysop now involved with the case. This selective ruling of vandalism is misconduct and subsequent selective interpretation of the same guidelines serves only to undermine the trust held by the sysop team and further underlines his unsuitability as a trusted user of this community. -- To know the face of God is to know madness....Praise knowledge! Mischief! Mayhem! The Rogues Gallery!. <== DDR Approved Editor 19:43, 27 May 2008 (BST)

I think you've got the wrong end of the stick here. Hagnat wasn't creating a vandalism case (or ruling on one), he's just asking that people don't comment on the main VB page, in a place where those people will see. He wasn't trying to report users for vandalism. --Toejam 21:23, 27 May 2008 (BST)
Exactly. I have issued no warnings (soft of hard), neither seek for any user to be warned... YET. I did removed the discussion to the talk page, because there is too many users involved in that case, and we can discuss it on the talk page and leave the main page free from chat. Still, none of these edits are something that only a sysop can do, therefore not a case of misconduct... --People's Commissar Hagnat [cloned] [mod] 21:36, 27 May 2008 (BST)

Not Misconduct - I don't see any ruling, just a polite reminder to keep comments to the talk page. --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 21:35, 27 May 2008 (BST)

Not Misconduct - As Gnome. There is no ruling, or even an accusation of vandalism. All he says is: <insert huge ass list of users here> when not involved in a vandal case, comments should go on the talk page, mmkay ? You guys are pretty aware of this, and this is just a reminder. - Hugs and kisses Hagnat. Also, moving discussion to the talk page is perfectly ok since a large number of users are involved. If you have a problem with him, try VB or Arbies. This isn't a misconduct issue. -- Cheese 21:43, 27 May 2008 (BST)

Right, just so I'm following a user posting on an Administration page, Vandal Banning no less, warning other users what that can/cannot, should/should not do isn't a sysop only ability? Can anyone guess what I'm going to be doing from now on?

If it's not a case then why is it in the case stack? Why is it moving through the section like every other case there? Why isn't it put correctly on each user's talk page, as mandated by Hagnat himself?

Also since Grim ruled on it, does that not make it a case? Because moving a ruling is a sysop only ability, or it better be, because you can imagine the forthcoming mayhem if not. -- To know the face of God is to know madness....Praise knowledge! Mischief! Mayhem! The Rogues Gallery!. <== DDR Approved Editor 21:58, 27 May 2008 (BST)

Last I checked, Grim isn't Hagnat. A soft warning is not supposed to be official, it's just telling you to stop. Am I right, Grim? --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 00:01, 28 May 2008 (BST)
Not according to my talk page, and Grim's treatment of the case. I was the only one who rated a talk page message because I'm apparently the most prolific. That smacks of something a little stronger than a simple message to stop to me. --brb, church DORIS CGR U! 07:52, 28 May 2008 (BST)
You are forgetting how this is done (Intentionally methinks given your very vocal opposition of this practice in the past). Soft warnings are logged on A/VB and the offenders talk page, but not on A/VD. After two such warnings within a moderate period of time, say, two months, any further violations are subject to the standard vandal escalations. Its how we did it with nalikill and a few other people, though only nalikill got actual escalations that way. It doesnt matter if hagnat wanted a warning issued or not, theres one there now (For you, given the huge quantity and abysmal quality of your posts there). Posting a VB case is not a sysop ability and this therefore cannot be misconduct. --The Grimch U! E! WAT! 09:21, 28 May 2008 (BST)
I didn't say it was. I was merely answering AHLG's question - and have just been proven more or less correct. Cheers. --brb, church DORIS CGR U! 09:27, 28 May 2008 (BST)

If it's not a case then why is it in the case stack? It was meant as a note on a page where all of the involved parties will see it. And it seems to have worked. It was poor form, but not misconduct. Just because Grim bolds something in his comment does not mean it is a ruling. Maybe he put the wrong emphasis in his comment. (did you find my ruling in this comment by the way? It was cleverly hidden.)

warning other users what that can/cannot, should/should not do isn't a sysop only ability? That's called helping out new users - I thought that was the whole point of this "community" blather? Now, do you really think they will take you seriously when they find out how you make petty complaints and butt in on cases that you have nothing useful to offer?

I can't believe this is the best you could come up with against Hagnat. If you are so out to get him you had better try harder. This was pathetic.--– Nubis 00:50, 28 May 2008 (BST)

I placed emphasis on the "soft warning" to demonstrate that the case was a legitimate case. I didnt rule because i wanted to take a nice long look at the page befiore i did so to seperate out those that did deserve one from those that didnt. Then, as sometimes happens, i was distracted by something shiney and chased it about for a few minutes, then forgot what i was doing and did something else. As for the case: Reporting users for repeated violation of the page guidelines and the issuing of soft warnings is nothing new, its been happening for about a year, it just doesnt happen often because people get the fucking hint before they make it onto the main escalation tree that way. However, if you want to throw away your account here, do not let me stop you. Its not like we are losing anything of value. Not Misconduct --The Grimch U! E! WAT! 03:25, 28 May 2008 (BST)


Not Misconduct And did all the sysops agree together that it was so.. and the earth trembled and shook as a mighty cloud of coconuts took to the sky... Conndrakamod TTBA CFT 04:39, 28 May 2008 (BST)

Ruling

We have 5 Not Misconducts from Grim, Nubis, Conn, Gnome and myself. Unless anyone has anything else to add, I think this case is pretty much closed. I'll leave it till tomorrow in any case, just in-case anyone has anything extra to add to this. -- Cheese 21:04, 31 May 2008 (BST)

I think that's been long enough. Case Closed - Verdict: Not Misconduct -- Cheese 14:39, 1 June 2008 (BST)

2008, May 10

Ruling upon a case in which he had a vested interest in the outcome, in an attempt to set a precedent to excuse his own behaviour on an identical case on the page. Such behaviour is just plain not on. Its an attempt to stealth rule not guilty on your own vandalism case. --The Grimch U! E! WAT! 02:00, 10 May 2008 (BST)

Sheesh, Grim... go back to lurking. --People's Commissar Hagnat [cloned] [mod] 02:05, 10 May 2008 (BST)
Already off to a glorious defense, I see?--ScoobyDooDoobie 02:10, 10 May 2008 (BST)
Non-relevant comments moved to the talk page. If you don't have anything useful to contribute, don't contribute.--  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 04:30, 10 May 2008 (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. - Page guidelines, as another pointed out to me in the past. Remerged back in. --The Grimch U! E! WAT! 04:38, 10 May 2008 (BST)
If you feel the spam is necessary, whatever. It's clear what it's going to develop into. Oh, and thanks for pissing on me. :) --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 04:41, 10 May 2008 (BST)
I'm gonna need something a little more definitive than him ruling not vandalism due to lack of bad faith.--Karekmaps?! 07:11, 10 May 2008 (BST)
Yes, him ruling not vandalism on an active case identical to another active case where he is

a defendant in is tantamount to ruling on your own case due to precedent. By ruling not vandalism on the other case, especially where no one had ruled, he was essentially saying that such behaviour was officially not vandalism, and thus the case against him, and by extension yourself, was not vandalism too with precedent.

Also, if for no other reason, the fact he had an open case against him for exactly the same kind of thing completely rules out any kind of impartiality on the issue on his behalf. You cannot be both personally invested in the outcome and impartial at the same time. Well, its possible, but you would have to be retarded to assume such was the case. A system operator is expected to be impartial in ruling on such weighty matters (Though in practice this is seldom the case). This is just one of the more blatant examples of such disregard. --The Grimch U! E! WAT! 12:35, 10 May 2008 (BST)
Does Karek really have a right to rule on this at all since he is tied into it? This particular one is against Hagnut, however, it stems from actions he made to cover Karek's actions. Karek is too involved in this to be considered impartial. --The Malton Globetrotters #99 DCC SNACK STRONG 14:44, 10 May 2008 (BST)

Given that there was no rush to rule on this case (no one had been quickly warned, nor were they likely to have been, as in the case above), I am tending towards misconduct -- boxy talki 17:25 11 May 2008 (BST)

Since no one is discussing this, and it seems we have reached a common veredict... I have warned myself for misconduct. --People's Commissar Hagnat [cloned] [mod] 18:55, 14 May 2008 (BST)
Yay, another meaningless punishment that will only end up being revoked for Hagnat. How many misconduct rulings is that again? Am I the only one who sees a problem here? --Cyberbob DORIS CGR U! 22:55, 14 May 2008 (BST)
Im not happy with him deciding his own punishment, since the punishment is essentially meaningless. Given his history of misconduct (Vast, vast vast history of it), i ask again that he be demoted (Or, at the very least, barred from performing any sysop action for a month). 8 times is more than enough, and this was rather blatant. --The Grimch U! E! WAT! 23:00, 14 May 2008 (BST)
Im not happy with several problems in the wiki... one of them being your inability to know when something is a serious problem and when it's not. Such a small case (like my previous one, the protection thang) should'nt be reason for the removal of one administration powers. I agreed with this misconduct case because i acknowledged that i jumped the gun and ruled on a case where i had a vested interest... but it is a small issue, i'll be more careful now and have accepted some punishment. Why create drama over something so petty ? --People's Commissar Hagnat [cloned] [mod] 23:52, 14 May 2008 (BST)
How many times has Hagnat been misconducted since his (last) promotion bid? It doesn't seem like 8 but then I don't keep track! --Honestmistake 23:57, 14 May 2008 (BST)
Because you have the most hideous history of any sysop on this wiki when it comes to misconduct. You ignore guidelines when they dont suit you and when confronted on these you say that you arent going to stop doing this, then you rule on a case where you have a vested interest in the outcome. Given your huge history of misconduct, and the fact that you are persisting in misconduct even now, it is not unreasonable to ask for your removal or suspension. --The Grimch U! E! WAT! 23:58, 14 May 2008 (BST)
Being in my position for almost two years, and involving myself in drama issues can lead for such amount of misconduct cases. But reading through them, one can see that most cases are like this one, small and petty over a small deviation from my duties. If most of them were really harmful to our community, then i'd agree that i am not doing my job right and would ask my demotion myself, but that's not the case. I strongly suggest you to do as honestmistake, and count only the misconduct cases i was brought into after my last promotion bid... as it was the time when the whole community confirmed that i can do my job well. --People's Commissar Hagnat [cloned] [mod] 00:06, 15 May 2008 (BST)
That promotions bid was a farce and everyone involved knew it. Back then, and indeed, even now, people make their comments based on how much they like a person, not based on their suitability for a job (AHLG, Cheeseman and yourself are cases in point), not to mention the point that the clique would have reaffirmed you regardless of what was brought up. You are a rogue sysop, and have been this whole year. Your continuing insistance on abusing your sysop priveliges forces me to request, once again, that you are either removed, suspended, or that you voluntarily step down. --The Grimch U! E! WAT! 00:14, 15 May 2008 (BST)
I dont see how any of these can happen, therefore i am done with this discussion. --People's Commissar Hagnat [cloned] [mod] 00:17, 15 May 2008 (BST)
Remove your head from your ass and everything should be much easier to see. --The Malton Globetrotters#-0 - kid sinister TMG 00:22, 15 May 2008 (BST)
I could not have put it better myself --The Grimch U! E! WAT! 00:47, 15 May 2008 (BST)
You know, Grim might have come without any proof, evidence, et cetra, aside from a simple base claim and assumption that you're attempting to manipulate the system but, your actions here, on this case, are enough for me to actual agree. I'm asking for demotion as you've shown yet again you refuse to follow the system when it inconveniences you and while Grim makes it extremely hard to take anything he says at face value anymore with the whole Mr. Politics thing he's started since his recent return you've more than shown by your actions here that you will do exactly what he's accusing you of. Misconduct, wanted punishment demotion.--Karekmaps?! 10:25, 15 May 2008 (BST)
Hagnat, the bid was a bit of a farce, although there were still some good points (for and against). Also, point out how my bid(s) were a popularity contest, the first being mostly not-well-known enough issue, the second was rather uneventful. --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 04:18, 15 May 2008 (BST)

Qouting from the top of this page..."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. "

Which sysop power exactly did Hagnat abuse? I have never seen a rule saying that a sysop cannot rule on a case which may reflect on them and am pretty sure I can find examples of others doing exactly that. If it is a rule then he has clearly broken it if not then it is not a case for misconduct!--Honestmistake 13:50, 15 May 2008 (BST)
The sysop power of being able to rule on VB cases, you ignorant little twat. There's always room for precedent, particularly in a case as blatant as this. --Cyberbob DORIS CGR U! 13:59, 15 May 2008 (BST)
Perhaps its on a page I have not seen, perhaps its on a page I have seen and did not read or perhaps it was just made up while i was getting laid but where is it written which cases a sysop can and cannot rule on? It doesn't appear to be on the A/VB page and it doesn't appear to be on this one either... If there is no rule that says he can't rule on a certain case (or type of case) then it can't be misconduct to do so. Whether its good form to do so is a different matter. Your abuse only makes you look bad bob... perhaps you should try moderating your tone (about the only thing anyone would like you to moderate these days!)--Honestmistake 01:41, 18 May 2008 (BST)
Your attempt at wit is as nauseating as the possibility that it is physically possible to be so retarded. In case you haven't gotten the message yet I don't give a flying fuck what my image is. --Cyberbob DORIS CGR U! 01:50, 18 May 2008 (BST)
Is he going to be demoted then?--Thekooks 22:56, 17 May 2008 (BST)
That would depend on how the rest of the team feels. So far, we've got a few calls for it, but ultimately, it depends on a larger base than two people. One being Vecurek, and one being Grinchy.-- dǝǝɥs ɯɐds: sʎɐʍ1ɐ! 00:43, 18 May 2008 (BST)

Excuse me? Show me where this is a violation of protocol that warrants misconduct proceedings. Maybe a conflict of interest sure, but blatant misconduct? ESPECIALLY with the recent trend of someone with the masterful abilities of others to step in and override the ruling of sysops in A/VB cases. One could argue that All sysops had a vested interest (one way or the other) in that case since it was in fact a sysop that had been brought up on A/VB... No I don't think so, And sure as hell not bad enough to warrant a call to Demote. That BS comes from the obvious conflict that has arisen from there being two "cliques" of admins, both of whom I can say I've pissed off equally at different times in the last two years or so... But I digress. Not Misconduct Conndrakamod TDHPD CFT 00:54, 21 May 2008 (BST)

And people wonder why you are not trusted at all. Vested interest in the case (Ruling not vandalism on a case which is the same as another open and precidentless case in which you are a defendant is most definately a vested interest and an abuse of precident), interfereing in his ongoing misconduct case by pre ruling on it and determining his own punishment before the case was resolved (Not the first time he has done this, or threatened to do it. Check his archive for an example where he threatened to close his own misconduct case with a verdict of not misconduct). Sysops are regular users, and they have been brought up on vandalism charges before. Saying that we have a vested interest just because they are sysops themselves on there is plain stupid. --The Grimch U! E! WAT! 01:13, 21 May 2008 (BST)
Oh...I'm sorry. I forgot that disagreeing with your interpretation made my opinion irrelevant and stupid. Forgive me. Oh and by the way expect my "ineptitude" to shine clearly and brightly at every opportunity. definitely, precedent, interfering Conndrakamod TDHPD CFT 06:32, 21 May 2008 (BST)
Yes, lets just ignore everything i said to make a personal attack instead. Rebuttals must be too difficult to come up with when you dont have a leg to stand on. At least when i make personal attacks, i have an argument/rebuttal (Oftentimes several) along with it. --The Grimch U! E! WAT! 07:34, 21 May 2008 (BST)
Someone call the WAAAAAHmbulance, looks like a certain someone spat the dummy. Sound familiar? Don't even begin to lie on that one Grim. This isn't the place for your all to common grandstanding. Conndrakamod TDHPD CFT 07:40, 21 May 2008 (BST)
There was no argument to respond to in the comment preceding that, just a tantrum. I am not above rubbing peoples noses in it when they lose their cool, and have never claimed any different. --The Grimch U! E! WAT! 14:57, 21 May 2008 (BST)

˅ You missed a misconduct and a not. --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 04:38, 21 May 2008 (BST)

Voting

Given that Grim and Karek don't accept Hagnats self imposed ruling of misconduct, and a warning, I guess this case is open to a sysop vote on the issue.

Not Misconduct
  1. As I said above, I've been thinking about this situation, and have come to the conclusion that it should be not misconduct. There is a clear line where sysops should not be ruling on a vandalism (or misconduct) case against themselves, however they are entitled to voice their opinion on other similar cases. To deny them this right is to be able silence a section of the sysop community via strategic timing of such cases. These two case involve incidents that happened days apart, and it is obvious that sysops had differing opinions on whether it was acceptable practice or not. Timing these cases so as to make it so that 3 sysops from one camp were ineligible to voice their opinion on either of the cases undermines the checks and balances of having a diverse community of sysops to reach a consensus on an important issue such as this which will determine the precedence in future cases. All opinions should be heard, not just those that oppose such strikings -- boxy talki 04:20 21 May 2008 (BST)
  2. As what I said above. And for the record, Sometimes being disliked as a sysop indicates you are pissing everyone off equally. And Grims obvious dislike for anyone who opposes his viewpoint on any grounds should furthermore be considered. It is of my opinion that considering the rush to Demote Hagnat, when Hagnat is one of the few sysops who has the balls patience to oppose his vitriol fueled rants shows a lack of objectivity that should be taken into account on this and any future misconduct cases. Conndrakamod TDHPD CFT 06:22, 21 May 2008 (BST)
  3. OMGZ! I'm ruling for my friend, it must because I'm trying to save teh clique! Oh noes!!11!1one! It might have been better to allow someone else to rule on the case, but the rule was not abuse. It's our job to rule on cases, (except on ourselves) and not being prevented because they're percieved as being biased or involved. As boxy.--  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 18:56, 21 May 2008 (BST)
Misconduct + Warning
  1. i admit that i have jumped the gun. I know i shouldn't have ruled on a case where i was involved and/or had a vested interest, and i did it because of the heat of the moment (they be troublesome days these days). But it's a small case, my ruling could be overruled by any other sysop with a better argument, and i would've accepted any punishment for it as i am doing right now, and that's why i feel this could be simply solved by giving me the warning i would've avoided if i were successful to free cheeseman's of his vandalism case and then using the same logic that set him free to innocent myself in my case. I find it too much of karek and grim to ask my demotion because of this case and by me trying to rule on it, as several sysops have already ruled on their own cases after admitting guilt of misconduct... this is no different and its a behaviour that should be praised, not further punished. --People's Commissar Hagnat [cloned] [mod] 04:31, 21 May 2008 (BST)
  2. The accused voted misconduct who am I to disagree(Am I the only one amused by the fact he just ruled on a case about him ruling when he has a vested interest?). Things like this are the reason people say that there is a sysop clique. However this is a relatively minor offense and this case taken alone is not a reason to demote him. Consequences should be proportional to the crime. That said I think Hagnat's overall misconduct history may warrant demotion but until there is a Misconduct escalation ladder or the equivalent his history is not relevant to the case at hand. If you feel that he should be demoted either set up a policy to do it, ask him to step down, or make a misconduct case against him on the grounds that his misconduct history is decremental to the wiki. - Vantar 03:43, 25 May 2008 (BST)
  3. Well, seeing as Hagnat has admitted to misconduct I'm not exactly going to vote Not misconduct.... However I'm going to have to accept Hagnat's explaination that he merely jumped the gun. However I find it hard to beleive that he coldly and underhandly tried to manipulate the system, I'd have to accept that it was an act of stupidity done in the heat of the moment. Such a thing doesn't merit demotion.--SeventythreeTalk 00:20, 26 May 2008 (BST)
  4. I think Hagnat did have a vested interest, and he shouldn't have ruled on the case. All of my other thoughts have pretty much been stated by the 3 users above me, so I'll keep this short. Due to Hagnat's history of misconduct (which I just can't ignore), I think he should receive 2 warnings at least, and a 48 hr ban at most. --ZsL 17:50, 26 May 2008 (BST)
  5. For the record, I'm gonna place my vote for misconduct + warning. After being personally asked to (har) I reviewed the case, and in my opinion, while Hagnat's actions weren't appropriate considering his vested interest in the case, I cannot assume that he was trying to manipulate anything, or acted in bad faith. In either case, it would quickly become apparent that the precedent for his case on A/VB was set by himself. Even taking into consideration prior history, demotion for something like this seems inappropriate, and therefore, misconduct + warning seems like the best ruling. Now I that I stated my opinion and contributed nothing new I can go back to sleep. --Daranz.t.mod janitor 21:16, 27 May 2008 (BST)
Misconduct + Demotion
  1. Oh look, he ruled it misconduct himself, if that isn't admission to guilt I don't know what is but, the fact that he ruled on his own misconduct case in a manner that would have restricted possible rulings to one he desired, that's a big enough deal that even if I without the next part I'd still call for demotion, the fact that it's similar in the extreme to what he's being accused of here leaves little room for me to rule Not Misconduct and not know I'm full of bullshit. It's a call for demotion simply because hagnat has a history with purposely ignoring punishments through misconduct, at this point and time the only thing that I think he'll actually regard as a punishment is demotion. --Karekmaps?! 11:59, 22 May 2008 (BST)
  2. Everything I would want to say on this has been said by the goons and with more obscenities. Just the fact that he is trying to vote on his own case shows that he clearly does not understand the concepts of "conflict of interest", "impartiality", and "DON'T ABUSE YOUR FUCKING AUTHORITY YOU ARE GIVING EVERY SYSOP A BAD REP." I think it was DCC that pointed out on average looking at his Misconduct record he is being brought up on charges every 2 months and that's ridiculous. If that is the standard of behaviour you want from Sysops then [here] is your next sysop team.--– Nubis 02:31, 25 May 2008 (BST)
    • This is not a vote - Since i brought the case, and nothing allows me to rule on it, i just want to say that this is my preferred outcome. Im not about to compromise my principles in order to tip something in my favour however. Count this opinion as you will. I should also note that nothing on conndrakas vote refers to the case in question. Its basically one huge personal attack against myself. he could have at least tried to look as though he was ruling on the case, rather than on the involved parties. --The Grimch U! E! WAT! 04:47, 25 May 2008 (BST)
Abstain
  1. Cheeseman, involved in similar case
  2. Swiers, removed own vote
  3. The General, inactivity
  4. Thari, inactivity
    People's Commissar Hagnat [cloned] [mod] 21:02, 26 May 2008 (BST)

Ruling

So, from the 15 ruling sysops, nine have voiced their concern about my misconduct case and six decided to abstain from voting (one being the reporting user, and one involved in a similar case). Anyone care to finish this case ? --People's Commissar Hagnat [cloned] [mod] 21:19, 26 May 2008 (BST)

Looks to be a severe warning, no? --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 21:42, 26 May 2008 (BST)
I would agree with zombie slayer ruling. We do have banned users for less than that for more ammount of time than that. --People's Commissar Hagnat [cloned] [mod] 21:47, 26 May 2008 (BST)

It's been more than two weeks already, and i am tired of this shit. Six sysops (five, excluding myself) think its misconduct against three who think it ain't, and seven sysops (six sans moa) think it's not worthy of a demotion, against only two whom have voted for it. Does my initial misconduct + warning seems unreasonable now ? I'm issuing this punishment (again) as i simoply want to see this case over. --People's Commissar Hagnat [cloned] [mod] 12:33, 27 May 2008 (BST)



2008, May 10

Going on the definition "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" listed above, I present this conversation as misconduct. As it is accepted, edits in bad faith are vandalism on this wiki, Hagnat's statement that "Going against these requests, knowing that they were made, is a sign of bad faith towards the maintenance of this page" is effectively an attempt to use the position of SysOp as a badge of authority to imply that editing contrary to a non-voted template would be automatically vandalism (a bad faith edit) rather than based on the intent and content of the edit (the normal procedure for determining vandalism).

To illustrate, again using the definitions above, "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" - if a user created a template for a community page that for instance said "Only members of the Generic Survivor Alliance may post news here in order to maintain accuracy" and then implied on a talkpage that anyone in contravention would be considered a vandal, the user would be laughed at and the template removed. As SysOps are to have no more authority than a regular user then Hagnat's attempts to browbeat this template and the definition of bad faith if contravened into the Vandal Banning criteria must be seen as misconduct as he specifically invokes his status as a SysOps when replying to my clearly accurate observation that the templates were not policy nor agreed by the community. -- To know the face of God is to know madness....Praise knowledge! Mischief! Mayhem! The Rogues Gallery!. <== DDR Approved Editor 11:35, 10 May 2008 (BST)

From A/G#What_is_Considered_Vandalism:
A/G said:
System operators may only warn or ban users who consistently vandalize the wiki. Vandalism is by definition an edit not made in a good-faith attempt to improve this wiki, and includes any actions which are defined to be vandalism by approved polices. Many examples of this can be found on UDWiki:Vandalism. Additionally, some pages may have specific rules as to their usage, and consistent and flagrant disregard for those rules may also be considered vandalism.
My bold. Pages such as A/VB have had their rules changed on several occasions to improve efficiency throughout the past without policy votes becoming involved. Usually after discussion, or a prolonged perriod of shitflinging. A policy isnt required, all thats required is for there to be concensus for the change. --The Grimch U! E! WAT! 12:47, 10 May 2008 (BST)
Consensus amongst whom, exactly? --Cyberbob DORIS CGR U! 13:47, 10 May 2008 (BST)
The people who have to sort through the page and use it as a regular basis? What is it with this place and the constant need for me to state the bleeding obvious? --The Grimch U! E! WAT! 13:50, 10 May 2008 (BST)
Except it's already been established that those people do not have any higher status than regular users. Try again. --Cyberbob DORIS CGR U! 14:53, 10 May 2008 (BST)
Where did i say that required higher status? Many pages are shaped by the concensus of those who use them the most. it just so happens that the administrative pages are most used by, suprise, the administrators. Other pages are done other ways and rewritten (Suggestions has its own system, for example). For example, we dont have massive policy discussions regarding suburb page changes, we dont have huge policy votes about what goes into guides, or the glossary, or search rates, or category pages (Like when i arbitrarily rebuilt the group category a few years back and, more recently, rebuilt a significant portion of the administrative archive pages, and when hagnat did arbitration around the start of the year (IIRC)). No, what happens is the people working on those areas decide among themselves what works and what doesnt and they impliment it and see how it affects performance. So far the change has resulted in a lot of whining by a small, but extremely vocal portion of the wiki population, but it has actually improved the page. You will also note that it has not been enforced outside of the boundaries of A/G, as i linked to and quoted earlier. The end result is that its just another moaning bitchfest by individuals such as yourself who just dont get the wiki. --The Grimch U! E! WAT! 17:21, 10 May 2008 (BST)
Not Misconduct - you quoted him as saying that it "is a sign of bad faith", which is not the same as saying that it 'is automatically bad faith'. That's exactly how those warning boxes should work. They are suggestions to what is the best thing to do. When people constantly start placing stupid, irrelevant comments on the page, or bring forth numerous petty cases against people without trying other courses of action (talking to the person), then it is indeed a "sign of bad faith". The case should still be reviewed by another sysop, via a formal report on A/VB, before any warnings (soft or hard) are issued, but it's not misconduct to simply state that you should be looking to work things out yourself before reporting it as vandalism. He didn't warn you, or even report anyone for anything -- boxy talki 17:09 11 May 2008 (BST)
Not Misconduct - As Boxy and Grim. They've pretty much got the thing covered. Also, if it offended you so much, why did it take you nearly two weeks to bring it to Misconduct? -- Cheese 17:43, 11 May 2008 (BST)
There's a time limit to misconduct now? Link to this precedent? Or is this just some other made up on the spur of the moment 'policy'? -- To know the face of God is to know madness....Praise knowledge! Mischief! Mayhem! The Rogues Gallery!. <== DDR Approved Editor 18:40, 14 May 2008 (BST)
Why recently people are asking for bloody policies and precedents every time a sysop say something in here ? Damn it. Cheeseman didn't said it was not misconduct because of a time limit... he only questioned your motives to report me after two weeks had passed since i had made that comment. There is no rules forbidding you to report anyone for any edit they ever made in their history of contributions, but reporting someone for an edit he made a long long time ago can cause the case to be dismissed because it was considered petty, or with a punishment as vandalism for the reporting user, since it can be interpreted as a bad faith edit. There is no rule or precedent for this, but you can easily understand how this holds water with some good common sense. --People's Commissar Hagnat [cloned] [mod] 23:59, 14 May 2008 (BST)
Why are people asking? Do you need it spelling out? SysOps are supposed to be trusted users, the community no longer trusts the SysOps. The actions of certain SysOps in obvious deviation to written precedent by using backdoor clauses without subsequently correcting the inconsistency means no user on this wiki knows where they stand. I can spot a dupe at a thousand yards on the suggestions page and can clearly follow the written instructions on how to kill it, likewise on recruitment. I've spent more time in the past few months reading previous cases on VB and misconduct and I still can't predict how a report will be ruled on. I'd be more accurate flipping a fucking coin. Remember my point about that template being misleading? You know, from two weeks ago? Did you, as a trusted user, attempt to clarify the situation for the future by altering it? Didn't think so.
Then we have your condescending "good common sense" remark.... good common sense would indicate that if something is so obvious that it'd easily pass a policy vote and then remain to be linked in case of future dispute. This is how precedent works in law in the real world. Wouldn't it make "good common sense" to do the same here? I await the condescending backdoor excuse.... -- To know the face of God is to know madness....Praise knowledge! Mischief! Mayhem! The Rogues Gallery!. <== DDR Approved Editor 00:31, 15 May 2008 (BST)



2008, May 1

Karek has stricken several Against votes (specifically, those of Money, Jaster, Black N Deckard and TagUrit), in my opinion unjustly, on the Third Bureaucrat policy page. He claims these are for meatpuppetry, yet on the talk page arguments for it have degraded from the original reason to:

  • Claiming the users don't have enough 'valid' edits, where 'valid' is a very strict definition apparently not including location pages, the pages belonging to their group or discussion of suggestions, none of which had been ruled as vandalism;
  • The users' lack of participation in earlier discussion of the policy, despite this never having been used as a reason before;
  • All users voting in the same period of time, despite this period of time being very shortly before the close of voting;
  • Saying that the policy they are voting for is unlikely to affect them, despite them being contributing members of the wiki the bureaucrat will have responsibility for.

At the very least, it looks like these deletions were very unfair.

I feel this is particularly bad. Not only does it seem to have been an incorrect ruling, it also looks to have been completely directed, unfairly, against Dead members who are contributing constructively to the wiki. They're a section of users I'd have thought you'd want to avoid alienating. In fact, I'd have thought you'd be positively encouraging such things. It hardly boosts opinion of the wiki if, even when Dead members genuinely contribute, they are shunned. More worryingly, however, it seems to set several precedents which could be very easily used by sysops to rule invalid a few votes to ensure one of their policy. I'm particularly concerned by the very strict definition of 'valid' edits, and how it seems ok to ignore someone's vote if the policy won't affect them: this could be abused in many weird and wonderful ways.

I've put this complaint here as striking votes seems to be a sysop-only matter. If it's not, I'll happily move this to A/VB, or wherever else it should go. --Grarr 21:58, 1 May 2008 (BST)

EDIT: Hagnat struck, without signature, Money's vote, and so (pending the approval of Vantar as he's already voted), I am adding Hagnat to this complaint as well. --Grarr 19:42, 3 May 2008 (BST)

I second this complaint for the reasons given.--דקקGunen.pngThe Malton Globetrotters#99 22:08, 1 May 2008 (BST)
I'm open to hearing discussion on the matter, it's why I left the policies talk page unprotected. I do, however, believe my reasons for why I did it are very clear over there and as such I'm going to let that be my "defense" for this misconduct case instead of needlessly arguing to the point of semantics.--Karekmaps?! 22:29, 1 May 2008 (BST)

Misconduct I believe the votes in question are suspicious. Historically group page and user page edits have been discounted in establishing a users level of activity. My issue is in the one sidedness of Karak's strikes. If Money, Jaster, Black N Deckard and TagUrit "against" votes are strikeable why isn't Randyest "for" vote also struck, it seams just as questionable. Since Karak only struck votes from one side despite questionable votes on both sides I say misconduct - Vantar 22:44, 1 May 2008 (BST)

See where this is heading I want to clarify that I have no problem with the fact that votes were struck, meat puppetry = bad and all. But what karak did is more akin to election rigging since he only removed questionable "against" votes even though there we questionable votes on both sides. - Vantar 23:40, 2 May 2008 (BST)
Not misconduct - meat puppetry should not be allowed. Karek did the right thing by removing the four initial votes and i finished his work by removing two others. There was already a discussion about this subject going on the policy talk page, there was no need to move it to this section. --People's Commissar Hagnat [cloned] [mod] 23:33, 1 May 2008 (BST)
The discussion has been going on for a while. Randyest posted on the 15th. Karek removed the votes on the 29th. Today is May 1st. Are you saying it takes you 2 days to read a page? I know I call the Mods slow, but this is the worst excuse. All void votes should have been deleted when voting closed and not when pointed out. Since you are striking votes you are hardly unbiased now in this aren't you? I say your actions made you a part of this and you should be removed from deciding on this.--דקקGunen.pngThe Malton Globetrotters#99 00:11, 2 May 2008 (BST)
EDIT: Not to mention we have proof and direct quotes from you on your bias towards the Dead. Since the matter directly involves the Dead as a group you should not be allowed to rule on this.--דקקGunen.pngThe Malton Globetrotters#99 01:08, 2 May 2008 (BST)
I'll be damned... so you still think i'm trying to persecute you guys ? Sheesh. --People's Commissar Hagnat [cloned] [mod] 01:15, 2 May 2008 (BST)
If not by some few users that i know and respect that came from the SA forums, i'd love to see all of you banned from here. You can call that corrupted by the power, i call it for the good of the urban dead community --People's Commissar Hagnat-5 [cloned] [mod] 12:01, 27 February 2008 (UTC) Wonder where we got that idea? But this is actually about not doing the job properly or impartially. You should not be voting on a case you are involved in. (any further on this may need to be moved to a talk page)--The Malton Globetrotters #99 DCC SNACK STRONG 21:41, 2 May 2008 (BST)
You are quoting something from two months ago, a lot has changed since then (including my opinion on you goons)... and the misconduct page has a little bit that says that any discussion about a misconduct case should go here, not in the talk page... not too found of it, though. --People's Commissar Hagnat [cloned] [mod] 22:49, 2 May 2008 (BST)
I'd say it's extremely dubious for Hagnat to be voting when one of his actions is actually cited in the complaint. I assumed that Karek was responsible for all the invalidations as he was the only one who signed, and apologise for falsely accusing him in the case of Money. On that note, would it be possible to amend the complaint (obviously with the agreement of Vantar) to include Hagnat in my complaint, for his dubiously unsigned deletion of Money's vote? -Grarr 17:04, 2 May 2008 (BST)
I like how you guys got all the facts right before creating this misconduct case. Classy. --People's Commissar Hagnat [cloned] [mod] 22:49, 2 May 2008 (BST)
I wouldn't boast about the problems caused by not signing your actions as a sysop. --Grarr 23:10, 2 May 2008 (BST)
Firstly, I think it should be noted that Karek was willing to unstrike votes if particular voters turned up and pleaded their case. That is not the behaviour of someone who is acting outside the rules. He was similarly willing to discuss the matter fully, without recourse to flame-baiting or similar tactics. Secondly, as I was the one that requested that action be taken against the (alleged) meatpuppet votes, if Karek is found guilty of Misconduct then I should take his punishment, or the equivalent (if it's psyop-specific), instead of him. Karek and I have had our (oftentimes vociferous) disagreements in the past, but I think it's clear here that he was attempting to protect this community (whilst still being open to criticism, and willing to alter edits based on that), and we shouldn't punish any contributer for doing that. --Funt Solo QT Scotland flag.JPG 23:31, 2 May 2008 (BST)

I would like to ask if there are any precedents for this sort of thing? I certainly haven't seen any, and would be surprised if there were any strikings of accounts that had contributed over a few days before voting on the policy (or whatever) in question as these guys did. Meat puppetry has been going on forever, it's a problem, but not a major one, and not something that is so simply resolved. It's just a fact of internet life that large groups can muster support for their beliefs. It's happened before with other large groups/forums... sometimes organised, and sometimes simply because a vote is mentioned on a popular thread without asking for any organised input. I don't see this as major misconduct, as Karek has shown a willingness to unstrike when the vote is backed up, but wouldn't like to see it become commonplace that users votes are struck due to their newness to the wiki... just as I wouldn't like to see The Dead encouraging members, who would otherwise be uninterested, to vote on policy proposals -- boxy talki 03:43 3 May 2008 (BST)

If I might add AxeHack's recent promotion bid as evidence of this: he advertised for his vote on facebook in a manner far more provable and dishonourable than what was going on here, and nothing was done. Granted, he withdrew his candidacy, and I know it's not a vote like this is, but I'm sure if Karek and Hagnat justified to act in this case something should have been done there where it was so obvious.
I would, however, question you on exactly how minor this is. 'You can get it reversed if you want to' is a dubious precedent and also makes striking a terrible defence against meatpuppetry, as it's easily exploitable by meatpuppets solely dedicated to making the vote fail, and so checking the page often, but affects innocent users who have other things to do on the wiki and don't check back. It's already been shown by Vantar that there was bias for the policy, which I'd say makes this look like this was an attempt to rig, even if that attempt was mainly driven by a largely subconscious bias. And finally, I'd say he's acted very irresponsibly by effectively setting a precedent where sysops, with as muchvested interest as they like, can be modifying the results of votes. What happened to Sysops are not Moderators, anyway? --Grarr 16:28, 3 May 2008 (BST)
Just for clarification purposes - I was one of the sysops online during part of the Axehack promotion bid gunk, so I may have had a chance to strike out the invalid votes. However due to the speed at which the entire thing shot down the shitter, and the convoluted layers of accusations and counteraccusations (I beleive Axehack thought he was responding to a wave of accounts created for the sole purpose of vouching against him) it was rather hard to figure out what exactly had happened. I beleive that axehack eventualy mentioned his facebook rallying, and it was bought to someones attention (if I remember correctly) but by the time anyone was in a position to do anything about it axehack had withdrawn the bid and left the wiki for an undetermined time. Therefore there was realy no point in invalidating votes, especialy as you pointed out, and I pointed out at the time - the promotions bid relies on community diiscussion - it is not a vote.--SeventythreeTalk 16:35, 3 May 2008 (BST)
Very well. Of course, there's still no precedent of a sysop actually being able to strike votes in the first place, let alone whether they think they're meatpuppets or not, especially as they're not supposed to be moderators. --Grarr 16:44, 3 May 2008 (BST)
I have no problem with Funt taking the punishment also since he was the one that turned the discussion into a shitstorm. Users shouldn't have to plead for their votes to be valid. Don't think it's big of Karek to go unstrike a vote he shouldn't have struck in the first place. It's misconduct. He has a history of [this]. This shouldn't just be considered "minor" at this point.
If I hadn't called him out on it he wouldn't have unstruck that one vote at all. So that wasn't out of the kindness of his heart. I can't believe he thought he would get away with striking Black N Deckard's vote. That's really misconduct/incompetency. Black N Deckard has quite a few different edits. (it's nice that it is restored, but it shouldn't have been voided in the first place. And we shouldn't have had to go this far to get this addressed.) Why not make a policy that any sysop that votes on wiki policy like this is unable to remove votes. It would lessen the appearance of impropriety or possible vote tampering. --The Malton Globetrotters #99 DCC SNACK STRONG 16:10, 3 May 2008 (BST)
just as I wouldn't like to see The Dead encouraging members, who would otherwise be uninterested, to vote on policy proposals - Trust me - If people aren't interested in the wiki they don't get involved. Any goon that is here has an interest in the wiki and its' policies.--The Malton Globetrotters #99 DCC SNACK STRONG 16:12, 3 May 2008 (BST)
I did not offer "also", I offered "instead". I'm not sure what your motives are here, DCC. Most people seem to want to come to a reasoned agreement about what happened, and to discuss it. You seem to be out for blood. If someone negotiates their position, that's a positive thing, isn't it? And yet you want to punish people for negotiating with you? Come on - give peace a chance instead of baying for blood. As for "vote tampering" - well, that's what started all this in the first place. There were still people who (after a blip of initial activity) then got called back in to bolster a vote, and who aren't really taking part in editing this wiki. This attack on Karek could be seen as rather a large smokescreen for that. You've heard of the pot calling the kettle black, right? --Funt Solo QT Scotland flag.JPG 17:10, 3 May 2008 (BST)
There's a reason why all modern Western justice systems do not allow others to stand in place of the defendants, and it's because they aren't out for blood. They're out for justice, against the person who committed the crime, to avoid anything like it happening again. And it's why we want the sysops involved, and not you, to face the punishments. We'd have no problem with you going over to A/VB and reporting yourself for flamebaiting or whatever, but in this case, we'd quite like sysop accountability, even if they do have masochist supporters willing to stand in and pay their idol's dues. You see, in this case, Karek and Hagnat took up the role of moderators, and in that role their job is to make a judgement between two conflicting points of view. The holders of the points of view are just saying what they believe, so they aren't those who should be punished. No, it's the one who claimed to be able to take these points of views, make a balanced, correct judgement on which one should be put into practice, affecting the community as a whole, but got it wrong. Except, in this case, they shouldn't really have been moderating in the first place, but we'll just ignore that for now. --Grarr 19:33, 3 May 2008 (BST)

yada yada yada... you guys are creating a lot of drama for nothing... just wait for another sysop to shows up and say his opinion on this case. sheesh. --People's Commissar Hagnat [cloned] [mod] 19:56, 3 May 2008 (BST)

It does take two to tango, Hagnat --Grarr 20:33, 3 May 2008 (BST)

I'm not a sysop, but I wanna pipe in here... First, Boxy wrote: "...I wouldn't like to see The Dead encouraging members, who would otherwise be uninterested, to vote on policy proposals." Uhhhhmmmmm... let's be perfectly clear here: they do it at barhah.com... I'm also under the impression that the NMC has done it... Why should barhah be able to get away with posts saying, "go vote no/yes for this ir that", but not the Goons? This hpw the sometimes flawed process of democracy works... Ever heard of vote stacking, i.e. they do it in political party nominations all the time, it sucks but it happens. Which is why some parties now require membership for a set period before you can vote... I think that decisions to strike votes should be done very carefully: I think karek was a bit heavy-handed here... And, there is a history of not deleting BOTH side of votes... So, I think a "BAD KAREK!!" is in order here... Though not a major misconduct, for reasons Funt said...

That being said... the Goons came here to break the "game". They have consistently shown a general lack of respect for the community and desire to stir shit up for the sake of stirring shit up. They are like one of those punk rawkers who goes all out to look scuzzy, and who is obnoxious and insulting to everyone... then screams DISCRIMINATION!!! left right and centre... Act like assholes, you're gonna get treated with suspicion. Simple... You brought the "persecution" (read: healthy responses to assholes) yoursevles. Deal with it, you fucking whinge fags. ---WanYao 21:10, 3 May 2008 (BST)

This just in Goons getting in trouble for being in character on the wiki but FURRIES and TRENCHIES still A OK. *sighs* *loads shotgun* My little one, someday this war will be over and you will realize that sometimes people just pretend to be things they really aren't. If you actually knew the full story you would realize that we didn't become these "assholes" until Karek unfairly banned our leader. If you are looking for a cause of all this anger that's it. --The Malton Globetrotters #99 DCC SNACK STRONG 02:26, 4 May 2008 (BST)

Proposal for ruling

This case is going in circles so I propose a quick ending.

The case against Karek is pretty straight forward. He used his sysop status to remove votes from the Third Bureaucrat policy voting and Grarr and others feel that the votes had no reason to be removed. I think all the sysops here would agree that there is nothing wrong with removing meat puppetry so just the fact that votes were removed is not, by its self, misconduct. However it is evident that there is atleast one vote in the "For" section that meets the strikeability criteria Karek was using. The fact that questionable votes where keep in one section while being stuck in other is troubling but I do not think that it is proof that Karek was maliciously trying to manipulate the vote; I think it just means that Karek noticed the problem in one section and reviewed the votes within tha section and striking votes accordingly but was then lax in reviewing the other section. Since this case was started Karek's actions have shown a willingness to correct any votes that should not have been struck. Votes that were perceived as meat puppetry that are shown not to be have been unstuck.Yet that does not change the fact that by failing to evenly scrutinize both the "for" and "against" vote Karek allowed for biasness to be perceived in the administrative process, but because of Karek's handling of the case once a complaint was lodged I propose a that he face no punishment beyond a formal warning not to let it happen again.

As for the complaint against Hagnat, it appears that he struck two votes after Karek had done preliminarily sticking. He didn't sign his strikes but there is nothing there that makes me belief that it is really anything more then failing to add the ~~~~ after the strike template. However by striking votes after Karek had it is implied that he is looking over the votes as well and then the issue of only the "against" votes being scrutinized resurfaces. I propose that Hagnat shares in what ever Karek final punishment be and because of his direct connection to the case request that he exclude himself from ruling in this case (He may discuss, comment, or otherwise contribute, just not rule). - Vantar 21:25, 3 May 2008 (BST)

Warnings have no place here and I'll not have any part of it. If I am to be punished it will be a punishment, not a slap on the wrist warning.--Karekmaps?! 21:57, 3 May 2008 (BST)
I agree. It's either misconduct, or it's not. Period. However... advice, critique and guidelines as to how to deal with similar situations in the future -- and caveats that failing to do differently will result in a miscunduct ruling -- that has a place here, no? --WanYao 22:31, 3 May 2008 (BST)
I am saying misconduct, and no where do i propose a slap on the wrist, I said formal warning, as in the next level one the vandalism ladder. - Vantar 01:11, 4 May 2008 (BST)
um... hi, vantar... why should that single for vote be removed again ? it's not a meat puppet, since it isnt voting together with the rest of the deads (i am not even sure if he is part of the deads) he fails to fit into that category. --People's Commissar Hagnat [cloned] [mod] 21:54, 3 May 2008 (BST)
Really? I could have sworn that this was the type of low activity account that had be removed If you are saying you see no reason to strike this vote but are going to say you had just cause for striking Money's then there is no question in my mind that this case is misconduct.- Vantar 01:11, 4 May 2008 (BST)
It's not only low contribution numbers, but also group behaviour that defines a meat-puppet, vantar. --People's Commissar Hagnat [cloned] [mod] 01:18, 4 May 2008 (BST)
Actually discounting the edit to his user page, all of his edits have been voting on issues where the dead have had a significant presence. So again I ask why is this user's vote not stuck when the others were? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Vantar (talkcontribs) at an unknown time.
Because it doenst fall under group vote... not only he vote against his peers (if he is with the goons), but also votes with a reasonable justification. Thus he can't be called a meat puppet from the goons. --People's Commissar Hagnat [cloned] [mod] 01:33, 4 May 2008 (BST)
How is "I don't think we need more. --Money 02:52, 22 April 2008 (BST)" not a reasonable justification or LESS reasonable than "we need a tiebreaker?" Why isn't this As a social anarchist I am against all bureaucracy. --Butters Scotch 16:46, 23 April 2008 (BST)" a reasonable justification?

And you are insane if you are saying that a group can't have more than one vote on the same side of an issue. Do you really want to have to go through every vote and check group affiliation? You know that if you try to defend this then every upcoming vote on ANYTHING will turn into this as we dig up any past group affiliation between any users that voted on the same side. Do you want this type of drama on every vote?
Are you saying we should go to a representative democracy? Why can't you understand that sometimes people that get along get along because they believe the same things?! And stop making yourself look more stupid by trying to suggest that Randyest is not a goon or doesn't fall under the REAL meatpuppet definition. He should be proof that we didn't meatpuppet this vote one way or the other. That everyone that voted voted what they really felt. --The Malton Globetrotters #99 DCC SNACK STRONG 02:46, 4 May 2008 (BST)

This isnt covered by policy either way. In that respect, the matter should probably have been taken to arbitration at the time, and a policy to cover this should actually be hashed out instead of making things up as you go along.

That said, meatpuppets are people too, though often misinformed, and pretty much an inevitable flaw of the democratic system. Theres nothing that allows anyone to remove votes from other users that meet the rules as they are written. You dont need to be a sysop to remove votes, it just has a more official feel if a sysop does it, and fewer people are likely to argue. This doesnt mean its an attempt to use ones status as a sysop to do it however, which is what is required for this to be misconduct. I canmt see that it has been used as such, so id have to say that while it is not misconduct, it would be vandalism of the votes of other users. Everyone is allowed their opinion. When you use a flawed system, dont be suprised when you have this kind of thing happening, there is nothing out there that allows anyone to remove votes by people they consider meatpuppets at present, and while i wholeheartedly support the creation of such a policy, provided its fair to all involved, without one at this time i am.

As any user can remove a vote, and it doesnt appear to be an attempt to use sysop power to force ones will on the wiki, my ruling on this matter is Not Misconduct, but Vandalism. You may not like the dead, but they are still users of this wiki, and players of this game. Get used to it. Besides, historically Something Awful has historically demonstrated a limited attention span to games when they dont set of an immune response in the community, like you are doing wildly now. This ruling applies to Hagnat as well. One vandal escalation. --The Grimch U! E! WAT! 02:05, 4 May 2008 (BST)

So it's ok to abuse us because "we'll be going away soon?" In case you Mensa applicants haven't noticed we have been heavily involved with UD since at least November. That's 7 months. What's this "short attention span" that you are talking about?
Theres nothing that allows anyone to remove votes from other users that meet the rules as they are written. If there is nothing written that allows them to do it then they CAN'T do it. They are sysops and they did it. That's MISCONDUCT.
there is nothing out there that allows anyone to remove votes by people they consider meatpuppets at present, They did something that isn't allowed - that's MISCONDUCT. The ones they thought were meat puppets weren't that's INCOMPETENCE.
As any user can remove a vote, WTF? Either anyone can remove votes or no one can or only sysops can. You are all over the place here. Your ruling doesn't make any sense and the reasoning behind it is prejudiced to boot. --The Malton Globetrotters #99 DCC SNACK STRONG 02:46, 4 May 2008 (BST)
Um... Where did you get the idea that im toeing the party line? I honestly dont care about Something Awful. I have better things to do with my time than worry about some faceless person on the other side of my computer screen who may or may not be trolling. I have things like work six days a week, a small tumor in my chest and a nasty infection behind my ear to worry about. Ive mentioned my feelings regarding the Goons on my talk page at least once.
Removing the vote of another user without a valid reason presented by the guidelines is censoring that user and is vandalism. Altering other users votes has always been considered vandalism. Deleting other peoples comments (Votes inclusive) has always been considered vandalism. This is just another case of more of the same. The only reason this is not misconduct is because there are no guidelines that state vote removal is a sysop ability, and there is also no evidence to support the conclusion that the vote removal was done with "official sysop authority' to impose these users will upon the community. Unless either of the former actually existed or happened, it is just plain vandalism, and not misconduct.
A sysop is a regular user on the wiki empowered to do certain tasks that cannot be entrusted to all users. If a system operator misuses those abilities granted him or her by the software and/or the guidelines of this wiki, then he or she is subject to misconduct proceedings. If they do not breach those guidelines regarding the use of their abilities as system operators, yet still do wrong, it is simply treated as the edits of just another user and should be and is treated as a vandalism case.
Where the guidelines fail to cover things, we have historically not considered those actions to be actual misconduct. Its simply a learning experience, we deal with the problem as best as we can, then hash out something to cover it so it never happens again.
That said, i would support a fair policy to deal with the obvious problem of meatpuppetry on voting matters, though id much rather prefer a system where voices are weighted based on the reasoning they present rather than simply the number of people supporting that conclusion.
In conclusion, get off your cross. We need the wood. --The Grimch U! E! WAT! 06:39, 4 May 2008 (BST)
As usual, Grimch is one of the only ones making sense... The rest of youj aren't paying attention if you don't get it. Now, Goons, quit your fucking WHINING already... --WanYao 06:43, 4 May 2008 (BST)
I'm going to agree with Grim here, striking votes isn't sysop privelege, so it's not misconduct. It's a matter for arbitration or vandalism (although the willingness to negotiate would mitigate the case). I will however unstrike the votes as there hasn't been any policy or precedence produced to back up the validity of striking meatpuppetry (despite numerous cases of it in the past, by many sections of the community) -- boxy talki 09:25 4 May 2008 (BST)
Wait wait wait, clarify here. It sounds to me like you're saying you found precedent but because you had to do it yourself it's invalid.--Karekmaps?! 15:40, 4 May 2008 (BST)
No, I found no examples of meatpuppetry being struck out (not that I looked too hard), nor do I remember any. But I've seen some pretty suspicious cases of seeming block voting over the years from all types -- boxy talki 16:34 4 May 2008 (BST)
I'm probably too late to join the party but I'm going with Boxy and Grim. Not Misconduct, take it to Arbies or VB. -- Cheese 23:19, 6 May 2008 (BST)
As I will also vote NOT MISCONDUCT I think its a pretty fair assesment to say this is descided. I am amused that what could have been a legitimate concern got derailed into a he hates us discusion. Conndrakamod TDHPD CFT 17:23, 8 May 2008 (BST)


Well, I did ask if you wanted it in A/VB first, but apparently sysops are very indecisive. A/VB report is here. --Grarr



2008, March 21

Hagnat issued a warning to Goon13 for this edit, which was in no way vandalism. People have always been able to speak their mind on talk pages, and the value of the contribution is meaningless. The only way you can be warned is if it is in contravention of existing policies or an arbitration ruling, which this edit was not. I have removed the warning and reversed the decision on A/VB, but there should definately be a sanction for this act of stupidity. He has a very long history of ignoring the rules and this is but the most recent example. --The Grimch U! E! WAT! 09:12, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Am I the only one of the mistaken opinion that vandalism is defined as a bad faith edit? If so, then that edit, being most certainly in bad faith, is also pretty certainly vandalism.--The General T Sys U! P! F! 13:22, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Not Misconduct Vandalism is "an edit not made in a good-faith attempt to improve this wiki". Just calling something "a stupid faggot pubbie idea" is not a good-faith attempt to improve this wiki. If Goon13 had left constructive criticism and hagnat had removed it then there would be grounds for misconduct. Given the user's other actions I would say this is nothing more then attempt to stir up drama, with is also not a good-faith attempt to improve this wiki. - Vantar 13:29, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Its a talk page, where people are allowed to express thier opinion. Sure, its not a helpful opinion, but neither is it automatically bad faith. To say people cant call it a stupid idea on pain of potential banning is censorship of the highest order. There are no rules regarding being obnoxious, or several users would have been banned long ago. Nor are there any rules regarding what people can and cannot state as their opinion on a talk page. As it is on a talk page it is pretty clearly presented as a persons opinion, and this is censorship of that. If you want to warn it, go try passing that civility crap again. A bad faith edit is an edit that disrupts the wiki. Posting an opinion on a talk page does not do that. All users, even the goons, are entitled to the assumption of good faith, an assumption you are denying them. Matters are not black and white. Bad faith is what warnings are for, not good or even neutral. When i created a sudoku puzzle in my user subpages, it wasnt an attempt to improve the wiki in any way, good or bad. Likewise, much of the chatter on talk pages doesnt contribute to the wiki, and there has been a great deal of flaming on this wiki which you could argue is almost certainly made in bad faith. What do we do about it? We take such matters to arbitration. We dont warn people for it. This case is being given a special dispensation, as usually happens to popular sysops when they pick on an unpopular or unestablished target who does something they personally disagree with, and both of you have been guilty of that crime in the past. How about you either step down or dispose of the blatant double standards you two? --The Grimch U! E! WAT! 16:41, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
OK im going to respond point by point to this:
Grim said:
Its a talk page, where people are allowed to express thier opinion. Sure, its not a helpful opinion, but neither is it automatically bad faith.

I did not say it was automatically bad faith because it was not helpful. The comment in question however is designed to offend and anger, the comment, combined with the user's history suggests a troll. This was not an automatic bad faith ruling

Grim said:
To say people cant call it a stupid idea on pain of potential banning is censorship of the highest order.

You are right say that you can't disagree with an idea is censorship, that why I am not saying that. Saying that an idea is "gay gay gay" and "a stupid faggot pubbie idea" is not the same as saying this idea sucks. The rules for talk pages are "Wiping comments on Talk pages is considered extremely poor form, and Archiving is the preferred action for dead conversations, and general content restriction apply as always." I believe that the removal of this comment is covered by the general content restrictions

Grim said:
There are no rules regarding being obnoxious, or several users would have been banned long ago. Nor are there any rules regarding what people can and cannot state as their opinion on a talk page.As it is on a talk page it is pretty clearly presented as a persons opinion, and this is censorship of that. If you want to warn it, go try passing that civility crap again.

I read this approved policy as meaning that general content restriction apply to opinions on talk pages

Grim said:
A bad faith edit is an edit that disrupts the wiki. Posting an opinion on a talk page does not do that. All users, even the goons, are entitled to the assumption of good faith, an assumption you are denying them.

The assumption of good faith does not mean it is impossible to do bad it means that when a sysop looks at the edit they must assume that the user had good intentions, which I did. However if facts arise that challenge that assumption the the possibility of bad faith may be considered. The policy in question was not under any discussion so the user was just randomly posting their option, not enough to challenge the good faith assumption but enough to spark interest and dig deeper. That digging resulted in looking at his contributions where I found a trend of escalation in the edits starting with posting group propaganda and ending with blanking your talk page. This suggested to me that the user was trying to be disruptive. A User who is just trying to be disruptive is acting in bad faith.

Grim said:
Matters are not black and white. Bad faith is what warnings are for, not good or even neutral.

I concluded the actions where bad faith from the above reasoning so I feel a warning is appropriate I need to assume god faith not have blind devotion to it I had valid reasons to believe there was a bad faith effort, also some matters are black and white, 1 is odd 2 is even, pretty cut and dry.

When i created a sudoku puzzle in my user subpages, it wasnt an attempt to improve the wiki in any way, good or bad.

Isn't that why its in the User name space and not the main namespace or main talk namespace.

Grim said:
Likewise, much of the chatter on talk pages doesnt contribute to the wiki, and there has been a great deal of flaming on this wiki which you could argue is almost certainly made in bad faith.

Most of the flame wars are about differing views about rules and their applications in different cases. Users are contributing to the wiki by supporting the course of action they think is best for the wiki, so it is in good faith

Grim said:
What do we do about it? We take such matters to arbitration. We dont warn people for it.

Yes when people have a disagreement the are systems in place to sort out problems, however when people are just being disruptive for no reason then they are warned

Grim said:
This case is being given a special dispensation, as usually happens to popular sysops when they pick on an unpopular or unestablished target who does something they personally disagree with, and both of you have been guilty of that crime in the past. How about you either step down or dispose of the blatant double standards you two? --The Grimch

This seams like an assumption of bad faith. I have explained how I reached my conclusion and I invite you to point out where I am cutting Hagnat a break, I am saying that I would have acted in the same way in the circumstance as I arrived at the same conclusion he did. As for your request for one of us to resign, a sysop is responsible to the wiki community, Hagnat has established that the community has faith in his decision making ability and I am willing to to reapply for my position but If you are going to ask me to do so I only ask for you to do the same - Vantar 20:31, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
Not Misconduct I was eventually jump in on this but couldn't have possibly put it better than Vantar. I can say that I too would have acted in the same way as Hagnat in this situation. If Goon13 had put it in his own namespace that would be one thing, but said contributer is not adding to the wiki but rather seeing how far he can go before being banned. The User in question has been brought up on Vandalism charges for blanking a talk page and I for one am tired of seeing crap-edits because certain individuals think they are entitled to. This site is intended to be a more detailed manual for Urban Dead than the FAQ and includes in-depth information such as active revivification points, strategy guides to playing the game, the results of investigations into search probabilities, details on other elements of the game mechanics including items and skills, and information on various groups of players, including Recruitment for player run groups. It is my opinion that any edit that does not contribute to one or more of those categories it should be deleted. And before someone gets nit-picky in the wording yes I know there are valuable wiki contributions that don't fall into that category and readily accept that as so...but "This is pubbie Fagot shit" is not a good faith contribution in the slightest. But then again.. Grim seems to think I'm incompetent especially in regards to Vandalism calls so take my equally weighted (compared to Grim's) opinion as you will. Conndrakamod TDHPD CFT 22:11, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Maybe someone should point out this isn't a Vandalism case, we aren't deciding whether or not Goon13 committed vandalism and whether he did or not isn't overly important to this case so much as what Hagnat did.--Karekmaps?! 04:22, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

I concur. Not Misconduct. Vantar and Conn have said basically everything I was going to say before I had to go to work. It's a Bad Faith edit that does not in any way contribute to a discussion or provide a reasonable opinion. I believe the warning should be reinstated and Grim himself taken down a peg for being a general Asshat: Both Conna and AHLG are extremely inept when it comes to A/VB, What sort of bullshit is that? -- Cheese 22:15, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Hey guys, very simple question. Who's handing out the damn drugs? Hagnat Reported and vandal escalated the user by himself against the rules of A/VB without a ruling Sysop that alone is enough reason for me to say misconduct but the fact that it was an edit on a talk page is all the more reason, yes he was being an asshat, just remove it then, but do not punish a user because they aren't nice. I am almost tempted to call for demotion due to the nature of this case and I think every one of you who is saying not misconduct should be soundly beaten about the head until you realize this is a blatant abuse of powers and what precedent you're attempting to set here, what it will do, and how you're attempting to use the fact that Hagnat is popular(or at least more popular than Grim) to justify it(see Vantar's promotion junk).--Karekmaps?! 04:18, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Karek, you do realize that: "A report has been filed through UDWiki:Administration/Vandal Banning, and the user doesn't match any of the previous instances shown above. In this instance, a system operator is specifically given the ability to warn/ban the user before a report is made on UDWiki:Administration/Vandal Banning, as long as the report is placed on that page shortly thereafter by the system operator or someone else. Furthermore, system operators are specifically given the ability to both report and warn/ban a user." Yeah, I don't like the rule and it should be only used in the most obvious of places where a warning/ban will stop/deter a user from vandalizing. --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 04:22, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
That exists almost solely for active vandals, it is not an exuse to warn users because you think what they did was vandalism. --Karekmaps?! 05:02, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
I disagree and find myself once more agreeing with AHLG in regards to Sysop discretion in banning of vandalism. If the sysop makes a mistake...well thats what this process is for. In this case, I'll reiterate, not Misconduct. Conndrakamod TDHPD CFT 05:18, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
The only time that would be appropriate is a case where it is so obviously vandalism it can't be disagreed with, such as blanking a page or the recent JR Streets edit. Otherwise that's using a nuke to kill a few bug. Warn, ban, it's not different, it's a vandal escalation made one something that is slightly dodgey not only because of where it is located(a talk page) but because of the nature of the edit(i.e. if you ignore the language he was basically saying it was a bad plan and was survivor sided).--Karekmaps?! 08:17, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

this is not a header

I think i better say a few words in my own misconduct case... This case was created because i warned a user and only then reported the fact. Grim states this is an act of censorship, and that the user commited no vandalism since that was a talk page and that users are free to say whatever they want in talk pages.

Warn Report
As some people must be forgetting, warn/report is legally possible, as pointed above by Gnome. A/VB exists because users can't ban vandals, the same way A/MR exists because normal users can't move pages, and A/PT exists because users can't protect pages. These pages are meant for users to report actions they themselves can't make. Sysops, on other hand, can freely move and protect pages or ban the ol' vandal from the wiki without needing to wait for another sysop to do it. It's good practice to report these actions after doing them, or to fill a report and let another sysop do the task. There is nothing forcing sysop to report moves in A/MR, but we usually report them. What i have done in here can be called poor form, but the law not only don't forbid me from warn/report, but actually says it's fine to do it.
Vandalism
With the matter of warn/report out of the way, whatever is left of this case resides on the matter of Goon13's edit being an act of vandalism or not. The edit was made in a public talk page (as the creator of that policy was permanently banned, it became a public page), with offensive intent at heart. The user didn't signed his comment. This contribution in no way improved the wiki, created constructive discussion abou the policy, or helped bettern the relations between the average user and the goons (the SA community, not the user in question). Since nothing positive would come out of this, the comment was removed, and the user warned. Goon13 also made an edit to Grim s talk page, that he also removed.
Furthermore, looking at Goon13's contributions, most of his edits are just nuisance and gibberish about how awesome The Deads are, most in new sections from buildings. His actions can be easily defined unproductive (their reports are filled with POV) and would be better off reverted in some cases, the same way Mr. Krabs's actions are (and he is insta-bbaned from the wiki). My rule was as vandalism, and for that he was warned. If another sysop disagrees with this ruling, he can counter it on A/VB, and we can then decide on the input from other sysops on the matter, and that is whats being done in that page.
Making a wrong decision in a case of vandalism is not an abuse of the sysop powers. To err is human. Several sysops have already ruled vandalism in a case only to later have the ruling striked out as not vandalism by another sysop, and they never had to face a misconduct case for that. I just counted 3 examples where a vandal case was several times ruled differently by the administration staff. Should the sysops who make the ruling that didnt stick also be brought to misconduct ? Guess not.

Having said this, i rest my defense. --People's Commissar Hagnat [cloned] [mod] 05:43, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

This is a Header

Reading through this discussion, and coming to the end of it all, it's pretty clear to me that this is not misconduct. --Ducis DuxSlothTalk 08:08, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Fuck the rules and due process right buddy?--Karekmaps?! 08:18, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, right of course </sarcasm>. Seriously, Vantar has a damn good point when he also rules not misconduct. --Ducis DuxSlothTalk 11:23, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm not saying Goon didn't commit vandalism, I'm saying Hagnat did commit misconduct. You know how? By warning a user over something that could easily be considered questionable grounds without letting another Sysop review it in any manner. Goon's a troll and a dick but so is Funt, so is Grim, so is a very large portion of this wiki's community(me included) and if you want to set the precedent that we can shanghai users on the basis that they're new or simply because they don't have any friends that will start drama because they got punished for doing something someone else didn't like I'll be more than glad to play ban the newbies with you. This is abuse, this is abuse simply because Hagnat chose to warn the user himself in defiance of the way we have(almost) always done things on this wiki, Hagnat chose to play moderator, and Hagnat chose to once again ignore the standard procedure for what looks to be his own convenience. --Karekmaps?! 11:42, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
By the way what's Vantar's point? It's kinda hard to find it through all the parts where he uses Hagnat being popular and Grim being the one to start this case to justify why Hagnat didn't commit misconduct.--Karekmaps?! 11:42, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
Ummm... If you agree that it was vandalism...then it isn't misconduct. Period. If Hagnat warned and reverted any form of Vandalism then it falls under his pervue as a sysop. It can only be considered misconduct if he failed to record the actions afterward. I should know, that was the consensus after one of my own misconduct rulings, at which point the determined punishment was "Keep better records, don't do it again." Plain and simple... If it is perceived as Vandalism by as sysop online then the sysop is right to revert the edit until the edit can be reviewed by other sysops (and or the community if it is a significant enough edit). And regarding your stance on newbies its what we have project welcome and two warnings for... And most people who start editing a wiki know more or less to not jump into to much crap before they can at least be informed of what they were doing was wrong. Hagnat didn't BAN Goon13 outright, he warned him/her that it was perceived as vandalism and to not do so again. I'd give you Misconduct if Hagnat had circumvented the escalation rule...but he didn't. Conndrakamod TDHPD CFT 13:05, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
That's just weak Conn, first off I don't agree that it was vandalism, second read above as to when that crap is and isn't acceptable, I'm pretty sure I was damn clear on that. There is no difference between a warning and a banning other than the ability to edit the wiki, it's still an escalation, a step closer to them being banned permanently from the wiki, and should be treated the same by the Administration team(that's us).--Karekmaps?! 13:36, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
"I'm not saying Goon didn't commit vandalism," - "I don't agree that it was vandalism," - please, choose a side and stick to it. --People's Commissar Hagnat [cloned] [mod] 16:03, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
I am, just take the time to read for more than things you can take out of context. This is a case about you committing misconduct, not whether Goon committed vandalism, the only reason I even mentioned my view on it the second time was that Conn was making it into that.--Karekmaps?! 02:39, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
I've got nothing to do with this case, so please, Karek, leave me out of it. Also, please refrain from casually slandering me for no apparent reason. A troll is (by my understood definition) someone who posts only to get a negative reaction - which is not what I ever do. I may be a dick sometimes (who isn't, I suppose), but that's in the eye of the beholder - I certainly never set out to be irritating. Also, I have an absolutely clean record on this wiki, in that I have never even been reported to A/VB - so linking my name to a vandalism case, through this misconduct case, is simply not on. I've certainly never used anything like the homophobic abuse that this Goon chap seems so fond of. Leave me out of it. --Funt Solo QT Scotland flag.JPG 15:15, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
I only mentioned you because you were on my mind at the time and the fact that you are a dick a lot but not in A/VB kinda makes the point.--Karekmaps?! 02:39, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
I say again, please leave me out of it - this case has nothing to do with me. --Funt Solo QT Scotland flag.JPG 09:26, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
Funt, If you don't want to be involved stop involving yourself, I'm not changing what I said and all you've managed to do is draw attention to it so you can complain about something. Just because I used your name does not mean I'm involving you in anything it means I'm using you to prove a point, the fact that you felt you needed to but in and add this, aside from the fact that you brought up your own record, just helps me make the point more because you're representing and doing the exact type of thing I mentioned you for. That's all I'm saying to this because I'm sure you'll reply again throwing a bigger fit and proving me that much more right or you'll leave because I said that and snipe for a few days or weeks. --Karekmaps?! 09:39, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
You've needlessly compared me to a vandal, and I've asked you (several times now) to please stop. That's not "throwing a fit", that's just asking nicely for you to demonstrate some common decency. As you continue to slander me, I will continue to politely defend myself. Again, please leave me out of it. --Funt Solo QT Scotland flag.JPG 11:26, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Consensus

If I'm correct in my observations It comes down to this:
Not Misconduct (5+1)The General, Vantar, Conndraka, Cheeseman, Dux and obviously Hagnat
Misconduct (1+1) Karek, and obviously Grim
Indeterminate (1) AHLG

The Wiki hath Spoken. The Wiki hath spoken so far...
Conndrakamod TDHPD CFT 12:51, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

(edited for clarity)Conndrakamod TDHPD CFT 04:46, 23 March 2008 (UTC)


Looks more like 5-1 to me, Grim is the reporter and Hagnat the reportee, neither of them count, and I don't believe The General has clearly stated his views as to whether this is or isn't misconduct, not to mention it's a little early to be closing the case.--Karekmaps?! 13:39, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
Its not a vote,nor was I closing the case as that would have included something like CASE CLOSED I was simply making a point by stating who believed what... Buy Hearing 5 to 1 sure sounds better to me than 7 to 2. I'll take your number instead. Conndrakamod TDHPD CFT 13:48, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
"The Wiki hath Spoken" doesn't read to you as attempting to close the case? --Cyberbob DORIS CGR U! 15:40, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
No...But I could see where someone might think that.Conndrakamod TDHPD CFT 04:44, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Not Misconduct - The ban, while questionable in it's severity, was within the spirit and the letter of the rules. Vandalism is defined as a "bad faith edit", and I ask whether anyone can honestly say that that edit was made in good faith?--The General T Sys U! P! F! 20:49, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Just because something is not good faith it does not mean something is bad faith...this is an incredibly dangerous precedent.--Thekooks 23:10, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

There is no gray faith... it's either good or bad. --People's Commissar Hagnat [cloned] [mod] 00:06, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
Yeah Hagnat, there is "gray faith" Good Faith attemtps to improve the wiki are attempts to improve the wiki, Bad faith are attempts to screw with the wiki, however someone who is expressing an opinion on a tactic or something can easily be said to be making a neutral edit.--Karekmaps?! 02:41, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
Two things, first I don't believe that the precedent "not good faith = Bad faith" is being set here, everything I have read here seams to point to a conclusion of "an edit determined to be noting more then trolling = Bad faith". Second in Karak's example the user leaving his/her opinion is adding to the avaiable information about the tactic thus adding to amount of known information on the tactic, adding useful info = good faith, so s/he is making a good faith edit. - Vantar 09:04, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
Ah, so this is actually about trying to sneak around the whole civility argument. --Cyberbob DORIS CGR U! 09:23, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
Kinda sounds like that to me.--Karekmaps?! 09:35, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sue I follow, the users actions were unproductive flamebait and he was warned for that. The moral of the story don;t post unproductive flamebait. Yes posting unproductive flamebait is not a very civil thing to do but it is also an unproductive thing and trollish thing to do and it was for those reasons he was warned not for his actions being uncivil. Profanity, insults, and shouting matches in general are not being threatened here, they just need to have context, which the edit in question did not. - Vantar 09:37, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
You're enforcing a civility policy even though they have failed multiple times in the past. Your claiming the user commited vandalism because he wasn't civil in his objections/because he was insulting. Yes it's bad form, no it's not punishable as the community has frequently rejected such rules on the basis that everyone is insulted by something different, here we've appointed ourselves as judge and jury and now you're all setting the precedent that if a user is rude and insulting they can get a vandal escalation/ban for it without actually committing any vandalism, without disrupting any pages, and without actively making the wiki worse. Right now you're setting a precedent that we can Shanghai users because they make an edit we don't deem constructive but no one in their right mind would deem destructive.--Karekmaps?! 09:44, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
I am not saying you will get a vandal escalation/ban for being rude or insulting. I saying you should get a vandal escalation/ban for making edits with the sole intent of stirring up drama for no good reason. If you think that this user was doing something other then troll the page may I ask why? Also if you are not going to call drama starting/flaming/trolling destructive what are you calling it? - Vantar 09:53, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
The point is how decided what is and isn't punishable trolling, it's a Civility rule in every definition of a civility rule and it's Moderation, in the very manner the policy that renamed us Sysops meant that we did not do. As for drama, it's always the second editor that causes the drama, Kevan himself once made a Cave The Trolls reference, the point of Cave The Trolls is that what they want, the reason they are trolling, is to get a reaction, possibly even a ban and drama. You're feeding the Troll and causing his behavior to escalate because he knows you'll react more, it's already started with Goon13. Drama is a tool, drama has a purpose, drama is a means to an end and the wording of your comment basically reads, to me, as "UDWiki is a no drama zone, if we think you're trying to start something we'll ban you" so no, flaming/trolling/drama starting is not a destructive edit, Vandalism is a destructive edit, what that includes is impersonation, destroying wiki pages, making the wiki incorrect, etc. It does not mean being a dick, it does not mean choosing to insult someone because they annoy you, and it does not mean expressing your dislike of an idea. The only time we should be imposing limits on what people can and can not say are three fold;
  1. When a user makes a realistic and personal thread to another user, " I'm going to slit your fucking throat " type things.
  2. When a user is impersonating or altering the words of another user in a manner to make that use look bad, " I like penis --Example User " type things.
  3. When a user is revealing private information about another user " Example User lives at 5568 newfound way, north Pacific, his ip address is 55.46.55.152, his telephone number is 555-6356 area code 435 country code 1. "
Aside from that anything else is a blatant abuse of our power and limits voted on and set in place by the community, including what they have voted against us having, some of which are almost exactly the type of thing you're proposing we be allowed to punish users for.--Karekmaps?! 10:20, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
As far as what the user was doing, he was saying it was a stupid idea, that's all, he was doing so in a manner that is common among the other SA Goons using similar rhetoric even the word pubbies, he was a dick, he was a bit of a troll, but all he was doing was expressing his opinion. Remove it or reply to it but warning him for it has, as was obvious from the start, only made matters worse. Sometimes common sense matters, sometimes it is smarter not to react immediately, and sometimes it's better to look at the whole thing before acting as you may think he's a vandal but your actions have made him into, essentially, a martyr. By overreacting to something so obscenely small and insignificant as him being rude in expressing his opinion you've let him know there's something to be gained by him escalating his actions and thus sent the message that he should vandalize the wiki.--Karekmaps?! 10:20, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
Are your really claiming that by saying "Please, do not vandalize the wiki. This is your first warning. And remember to always sign your posts" Hagnat was encouraging him to vandalize the wiki? Nowhere did Hagnat feed the troll he treated him/her the exact same way that every other vandal is treated, and as described by the guidelines. The rules apply to everyone equally and, as has been established before, to do otherwise can be considered misconduct. - Vantar 10:33, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
Yes I am, but that's not the most important part of what I said by far. The most important part of what I said was where I explained why it was misconduct, the fact that warning was encouraging him to vandalize was an aside about bad judgement in this case. What you're establishing, right now, is that the rules do not apply to everyone equally, if he wasn't a new user he would, likely, not have been warned with a vandal escalation, if you're a rude user you can now be warned for a vandal escalation for flaming/trolling/drama starting. That is what you are saying and you're attempting to dress it up as justice and peacekeeping.To steal a religious quote, "The devil's greatest trick was convincing the world he didn't exist."--Karekmaps?! 10:47, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
I concluded that the user in question is a vandal and was acting in bad faith, evidently you conclude the same thing,
Karek said:
I'm not saying Goon didn't commit vandalism
I say since the user was a vandal, the vandal banning guidelines should be followed. Yet you are saying that the user was a vandal so treating him like a vandal is misconduct. Am I the only one confused by this?- Vantar 11:03, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
Read a little further before you start trying to twist, I was saying, there, that whether he did or did not commit vandalism was only of secondary importance and that I hadn't expressed my view on the matter up to that point of the misconduct case. I'm saying a)user wasn't a vandal and b)even if he was it was still misconduct due to the manner of the warning in relation to the content involved. I have been very damn clear on this and have had to mention it in almost every single one of my comments on this page only to have in still ignored or taken out of context.--Karekmaps?! 11:12, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
I am not trying to twist your words, it has been established that this user is a vandal, further it is quite clear that the user was trying to troll the wiki. An edit for no purpose other then to disrupt the wiki is vandalism. The issue is not what he said, it is why he said it. There is no civility policy being Trojan Horsed here. You may disagree with the conclusion but, as I believe I have outline above already, there are valid reasons to think the edit in question is vandalism. Given that hagant actions can be justified through valid reasoning, then misconduct can not have occurred. - Vantar 11:52, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
It has not been established that he was a vandal - I have made countless troll edits to the wiki, all of which with as little benefit to anyone as that made by Goon (as have many many others). Hell, I've actually gone and made a number of comments which are word for word identical to the one Goon was warned for; the only difference being that I signed. I haven't seen any vandal case brought against me, which makes me wonder whether you're ragging on Goon because he's new and doesn't seem to be a good user. In short, you are twisting the "bad faith = vandalism" rule beyond belief to fit in with your own values and are completely ninja'ing the lack of a civility rule. --Cyberbob DORIS CGR U! 12:00, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
Give me a link to such an edit by you and I will gladly take you to A/VB for it - Vantar 12:06, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
I think you'll have some minor issues with that - AHLG already responded to it without warning me. --Cyberbob DORIS CGR U! 12:08, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
I could say that it is vandalism, maybe. It's disrupting the wiki to make a point. The only reason why I am not bothering to warn you is because of this mess here that needs sorting out, and how useless a warning would be. I have no belief that it would get you to stop and punishment is just silly. I don't know Goon13 on the other hand, maybe it's just some kid that will stop after he is warned/told not to?--  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 17:09, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
Double speak amuses me. If the user was a vandal that does not change the manner in which he was warned which in and of itself was misconduct, however warning him for it period is also misconduct on the basis that it is very much a civility policy no matter how much you claim it isn't, it's a warning based completely on his level of civility in expressing his viewpoint.--Karekmaps?! 12:04, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

You know, I haven't actually ruled just yet, or put out much of an opinion for that matter.--  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 05:07, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Edited to take that into consideration, Sir. Conndrakamod TDHPD CFT 05:14, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

This is a not a new header

Karek and Cyberbob have already said several times that this case is not about wether Goon13's actions being vandalism or not, but if warning him was an abuse or not of my powers. They are wrong. To define the goon action as vandalism or not is the key to solve this case, since if he commited vandalism there is no way my actions can be called abuse of power. And, like stated in the above header that ain't, even if they were not vandalism there is open room not to punish a sysop for issuing a wrong ruling in a case of vandalism, as can be seen in 3 cases in march alone. Cyberbob likes to remind us that most of his edits are flamebait, and that he never got punished for his actions, thus this is double standards against a new user.

vandalism
If Goon13's actions were not vandalism, why did Fat Albert got banned ? He didnt spammed 20 pages in a short period of time, as the rule that punish user for spam allow us to, and neither disrupted the wiki in a way that would justify the user being perma'ed. You can't justify his ban as being an alt account for Mr. Krabs, as ip check tells that they were different person (there was even another vandal with the same ip as fat albert). The only thing that links these user are their annoying behavior in the wiki. So, if Fat Albert commited no vandalism neither was a confirmed alt account of perma'ed user, why was it acceptable to perma him ? Simply said because his actions were all in bad faith, with the sole aim to create havoc in the wiki. Removing such user from the wiki would avoid a lot of trouble. The same way applies to Goon13 edit in the Sacred Ground Policy talk page. Nothing would be gained continuing the discussion he started, and i felt a single warning could put an end to what could escalate to him flaming other pages in the wiki.
double standards
cyberbob points that me warning a new user, and doing nothing against a veteran user such as himself is double standards. That would be true, if there were any correlation between his actions and the goon's. Goon's edit was made in a public page, directing his harassment to the entire list of nearly 900 users that support the SFP. I, for one, never seen he creating a new header in a public talk page and simply start drama in there for no good reason. Yes, he flamed users and groups, but they can defend themselves and report the user in A/VB, while public pages don't have anyone to protect them. If i flame a user/group, he is free to rmeove the comment. If i flame a public page, anyone can remove the comment, but can also be punished by doing so, and anyone can also revert the edit and put the comment back on. This is the key difference between a user/group talk page and a public one, the second can lead to a whole lot more drama to prevent a user from keeping the comment on.
wrong ruling and punishment
returning to the merits of wether it's vandalism or not. I have issued a warning for vandalism. Was i right ? Was i wrong ? Beats me! The only way for us to decide that is to discuss on the subject. That is usually done in the report, and no sysop have EVER been brought to misconduct for wrongly ruling in a case. In all cases there was a simple majority concensus in the vandal report, or a sysop with a strong argument reverting the ruling. If grim had any issues against my ruling, he could easily discuss it on A/VB and convince the administration staff to revert such a ruling, without the need to create a misconduct case. That is how we usually solve this kind of problems in A/VB.

That's it for now. Have fun, because that's what i try to have in the wiki. --People's Commissar Hagnat [cloned] [mod] 17:17, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Karek's Response
Hagnat said:
and no sysop have EVER been brought to misconduct for wrongly ruling in a case.
Vista was, Xoid was Frequenly for exactly what you did here, The General has been at least twice, 'STER was, Grim has been a few times(mostly people calling his neutrality into question), Cyberbob has been for something similar to this case, Conndraka has been once and once for something very similar to this, I'd say the case I started against Boxy was similar enough although it's about Misconduct punishment not A/VB, BobHammero was, but, most notably, You(Hagnat) have been through this drama multiple times for exactly what you did here both within A/VB and outside of it This A/VB case which led to this Misconduct one, THIS Misconduct case where he is punished for exactly this, and THIS Misconduct case where he is punished, again, for exactly this. And those are just in relation to A/VB, although most every case in the Misconduct Archives can be related in some manner to this type of action taken.
Hagnat said:
Karek and Cyberbob have already said several times that this case is not about wether Goon13's actions being vandalism or not, but if warning him was an abuse or not of my powers. They are wrong. To define the goon action as vandalism or not is the key to solve this case, since if he commited vandalism there is no way my actions can be called abuse of power.
No, that's wrong, I've said this case isn't about Goon13, but that is an extreme simplification of what I meant, something that shouldn't be overly difficult to understand and why I haven't expanded on it in more than a basic manner. My point is that everyone is treating this case like the only thing that matters is whether Goon13 committed vandalism when that is far from reality. This is a misconduct case about you, Hagnat, it's about your actions in relation to punishing Goon13, it's made worse if he did not commit vandalism, but because of the nature of the warning's delivery(read the misconduct archives where it's referred to as a Report-Warn when he is punished for doing it) it is still misconduct regardless of whether or not Goon13 is a vandal, it is misconduct because Report-Warns and the exception rule that exists to allow them is being purposely misinterpreted and misused, That Rule Exists To Ban Active Vandals Who Are Currently and Actively Performing Destructive Edits, users like the 3pwv(this why this is killing a fly with a nuke). I'm saying that even if Goon13 did commit vandalism Hagnat still performed misconduct, the two are not mutually exclusive and the first only applies to how severe the misconduct was.
Hagnat said:
Was i right ? Was i wrong ? Beats me! The only way for us to decide that is to discuss on the subject. That is usually done in the report,
And lastly, yes, it usually is, it is also why Report-Warning is misconduct, it prevents that discussion from taking place until after the fact in a case where taking immediate action was obviously not necessary and could only serve to make such discussion largely irrelevant as the user had already been warned.--Karekmaps?! 07:13, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
Looking through the cases you cited you do realize that all but two were ruled not misconduct? Regardless, the majority of people disagree with your interpretation of numerous points most specifically that that Goon13's intent plays a integral part as to whether Hagnat committed wrong or not. If I remember correctly, you are the one studying law? Good for you, but presenting arguments like a legal case, even done so competently, will not change the general trend of how this wiki operates. sorry to say but...its true. Conndrakamod TDHPD CFT 13:32, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
Bullshit, Hagnat himself has been punished twice before for this exact same thing. Don't attempt to claim what's happening here is anything but you guys letting him off because he is popular and then you, again, trying to stop discussion on the matter.--Karekmaps?! 14:21, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
This "general trend" you mention... would you care to define it? --Cyberbob DORIS CGR U! 14:43, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Ruling

This proceeding having gone on for the prerequisite three days, and the considerable majority of Hagnat's fellow sysops agreeing with Vantar's initial ruling, despite Karek's spirited attempts to prove otherwise...
NOT MISCONDUCT
and to be perfectly clear on this one...
CASE CLOSED
oh and furthermore just for future reference
Precedent Set Conndrakamod TDHPD CFT 13:41, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Conn, I really am tempted to start a case against you for that right there but I know it would get ruled not misconduct by the same people, it's not even been a damn week, there is no need to rush things along unless the intent is to stop it while it's still early.--Karekmaps?! 14:24, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
Karek, you are in the wrong and a month isn't going to make you any more right. Get over it. Conndrakamod TDHPD CFT 14:27, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
Conn, just because Kevan is too hands off to step in to tell you that you're abusing your position as a Sysop doesn't mean I won't, what you are doing here is disgraceful and you should be ashamed, what is happening here is a blatant example of the rules not applying to Hagnat because a few Sysops who are only around to get people they like off when they are accused of Misconduct have decided Hagnat is too popular to punish for something he has been punished twice before for. If you are only going to stick around to get people you like off at misconduct cases and to make edits in the interest of your group through abuse of your own sysop powers you should demote yourself now, I mean shit, out of all the Sysops here who have ruled only three of them actively do anything other than get popular users out of misconduct cases, one of them is a 'crat, and one of them recently got protected by Hagnat when he refused to give him a real warning for an edit deemed impersonation.--Karekmaps?! 14:41, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for saying that your opinion is the only one that matters. And I've done plenty over the several YEARS Ive been a sysop. Get over yourself. Conndrakamod TDHPD CFT 14:57, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
No, just that there is obvious bias from certain users choosing to involve themselves in this case, for example the one closing it. --Karekmaps?! 15:15, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
Kinda hoping that I can make my point now, without being shouted at..... It's as follows. 1) Goon13's edit was bad faith. It added nothing but an insult to that page, that, in my opinion is a bad faith edit. I know that some people have posted things just as bad, some of them even on this very page, but the distinction in my mind is that although those edits where just as insulting, they where part of an ongoing argument, or discussion, and we all get a little bit pissed off and say things we don't mean or shouldn't say in those circumstances. Goon13 was just posting that to start a row, he had no previous provocation to make that statement. 2) Hagnat should have realy waited for another sysop to rule on that case, but seeing as it's just a first warning, and judging by Goon13's other comments which previous to the gaygaygay comment (is anyone else getting just a little tired of this homophobia?) it's hardly a case of Hagnat going massively over the top. In conclusion, I can understand why people think hagnat jumped the gun, but I fail to see why this is a case for Misconduct, and not simply reminding hagnat to get another sysop to rule in one of these "shade of grey" cases of vandalism. I abstain.--SeventythreeTalk 12:38, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Because he's done exactly this twice before and been punished for it both times. A warning and a banning are the same level of punishment and should not be treated differently they mean the same exact thing.--Karekmaps?! 01:13, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Could you give links to the cases please? (Sorry if you have already, there's a lot of text up above to trawl through.) I'm tending to not vandalism at the moment. There have been plenty of times when warnings have been handed out by the reporting sysop without consultation. I personally don't agree with the practice unless an immediate warning/ban is obviously necessary (if the vandalism is still happening), but until a policy is proposed to stop it, it's allowable under precedence -- boxy talki 09:50 27 March 2008 (BST)
UDWiki:Administration/Misconduct/Archive/Hagnat#22:29.2C_2_September_2006_.28BST.29 and UDWiki:Administration/Misconduct/Archive/Hagnat#04:35.2C_25_September_2006 --Karekmaps?! 04:24, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Well there you go, you are right. However, times have changed since then, report/warning of vandals has become acceptable (regrettably). For example, Nali getting banned for a week. We'll need a policy to undo the precedent now. Given that Hagnat reported his actions on A/VB, I'll have to say Not misconduct here -- boxy talki 04:41 28 March 2008 (BST)

2008, January 31

I apologise for bringing another case so soon after the last, but unfortunately it seems Hagnat has not learned his lesson.

Hagnat deleted the following pages in the last week without going through A/SD, A/D or Deletions Scheduling The pages are as follows:

  1. UDWiki:Administration/Arbitration/Archive3 (20:33, 29 January 2008)
  2. UDWiki:Administration/Arbitration/Archive4 (20:59, 29 January 2008)
  3. Special:Log&page=UDWiki%20talk:Administration/Arbitration/Archive3 (21:15, 29 January 2008)
  4. UDWiki:Administration/Arbitration/Archive2 (12:19, 31 January 2008)
  5. UDWiki:Administration/Arbitration/MrAushvitz_vs_The_majority_population_of_the_Suggestions_page (12:30, 31 January 2008)

Feel free to check the final revision in each case. You will clearly note that in none of these cases was the final revision a page move (The sheer number of revisions deleted in each case should make this immediately apparent), and thus the deletions scheduling for unused redirects resulting in page moves does not apply. I shall leave it to you to satisfy yourselves that i am telling the truth on this matter, preferably though checking yourself.

Guidelines clearly state:

Guidelines said:
System operators may only delete a page in one of four instances:
  1. A page has been listed on UDWiki:Administration/Speedy Deletions, and that page is eligible for Speedy Deletion according to the current guidelines for Speedy Deletions. Before serving the request, system operators are expected to review the page to ensure its suitability for Speedy Deletion.
  2. A page has been listed on UDWiki:Administration/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 system operator in the User namespace as a subpage of the administrator's user page, no user other than the administrator has made substantial contributions to the page, and the page is not required for any significant reason. In this case, the system operator should make note of his or her deletion on UDWiki:Administration/Speedy Deletions either before or after he or she has deleted the page.
  4. When acting in accordance with approved policies.

Except in the third instance listed above, a system operator may not delete a page that he or she has requested be deleted. It is part of a system operators' responsibility to check the Speedy Deletions and Deletions pages often and serve any pending requests, subject to the guidelines above, and review the administrator Page Deletions page often to ensure that administrator user pages have been deleted properly.

Unfortunately, Hagnat did not go through the proper procedures for deleting pages, and did so in his completely arbitratry implimentation of a new system in Arbitration. Since all of these deletions took place after Vantar, Karek and AHLG ruled misconduct on the previous case, i have added them here. The last two happened 12 hours after karek closed the last case.

I acknowledge that there is some wriggle room in interpretation with the rules, however this goes well beyond wriggle room, into the realms of blatant disregard for the rules, guidelines, and procedures of this wiki. He ignored A/SD. He Ignored A/D, He ignored Deletions Scheduling. All of which could have handled this with varying degrees of speed, and he did it knowing full well all these existed, and knowing full well such actions were misconduct. Transparency in administrator actions is absolutely essential. Such actions have always been subject to public approval, and the possibility of public objection. He has undermined that most basic principle that the guidelines on the use of all our powers as sysops embody repeatedly, blatantly, and knowingly.

Once again Hagnat has demonstrated wanton disregard for the rules, practices, precedents and procedures of this wiki. The rules apply to everyone, including him. Given how blatantly he has ignored the rules since his last conviction for misconduct on what is practically the same thing, as well as his long history of violating or ignoring the rules, as demonstrated by his misconduct archive, i ask for his status as a sysop to be revoked. --The Grimch U! E! WAT! 14:54, 31 January 2008 (UTC)



For the information of those who will judge this case, in the general conduct section of the Guidelines Rehashed policy, you will find this:

  • "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."

(That will be my only input to this case, unless I am directly questioned or slandered in any way.) --Funt Solo QT Scotland flag.JPG 15:04, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Paragraph 2 after the quote rebuts this. --The Grimch U! E! WAT! 15:06, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Save me a little time here please Grim... has he deleted the content or just tidied up the archives into a single page/category? If its the first he has gone way too far if the second I think its probably a lot less serious! Not got time to trawl today but either way I am not at all sure I like his Arbitrary changes to the Arbies system! --Honestmistake 15:11, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

The content was moved manually (This is not covered under scheduled deletions, those cover unused redirects resulting from page moves), the pages were deleted. We arent allowed to do that, and all of it had to do with his changes to arbies. It makes it ever so much harder to roll back if we object. Id have to do a little more digging to be sure, but i have work tomorrow and need to go to bed. --The Grimch U! E! WAT! 15:30, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Aye, i did all that. I moved the content from the archives to separate pages, and linked these on the new archive page i created for arbitration. Insert ruling here so i can read once i return from my vacations. Wish some sun for me. --People's Commissar Hagnat [cloned] [mod] 15:39, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

And, aside from drama, what were your recent contributions to the wiki, Grim's ? The only thing you have done for the past weeks is trolling all pages you decided to contribute. All policies you were against, you tried to ban a user for a frivolous edit, you misconducted me for a trivial matter. The only place you are good at is banning vandals... if someone needs to lose sysop powers in here, it's you, since i doubt the community trust your judgment to decide things on your own. Yes, i did deleted the archives, but only after i moved all it's content to separate pages and created trackers for them. It was a maintenance work, that will allow us to better keep track of every arby cases that ever happened in this wiki. Unlike your misconduct counter, this is useful. If it were do it again, i would have done it gladly. --People's Commissar Hagnat [cloned] [mod] 15:52, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
I have put myself in the fire. Let's see now what the community wants: a sysop who follow the rules by the letter, or one that bend these rules for the good of the community. If you are secure that they want the first, why dont you place yourself for evaluation so we can decide which way the community wants this wiki to be managed. --People's Commissar Hagnat [cloned] [mod] 16:24, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

So, all Hagnat did was move the content via copy paste? How does this differ from using the move action? --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 16:55, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I think the problem is that he deleted the pages which he moved the content from. Without going through A/SD or A/D. - W 17:19, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
Mmm, yes I know. But move deletes are scheduled deletions, assuming they are not in use. --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 17:22, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
Wouldn't that mean he would have to go via A/MR then? I'm no expert, just trying to understand. - W 17:25, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
No, apparently sysops don't need to go through A/MR to move stuff. They can do it all on the spot. --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 17:28, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
Well if moving and merging pages does not require A/MR for sysops, and deleting the empty remains falls under moving pages, then I agree that this is pointless.. - W 17:37, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
The scheduled deletion matter has been dealt with earlier. Its been posted twice. The Scheduling covers unused redirects resulting from page moves. In each case, the pages have upwards of 20 revisions deleted, indicating that this is not the case (Excepting the last, but it wasnt a movedelete or redirect, as you can also check). --The Grimch U! E! WAT! 21:31, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
It doesn't matter how many revisions there were, just as long as all the content is moved and the redirect is not in use. --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 22:33, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
The content was moved, but now everywhere that cites/cited it now have no way of finding it.--Karekmaps?! 23:03, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to rule misconduct but, only because of the manner of the edit, specifically the way he chose to do it screwed up pretty much every single link to archives that are linked in a multitude of places. Unfortionately deletions is something that should be done sparingly, a simple crit 1 request would have given people the notice to make the necessary changes or even alter or update the system, as is I'm going to be doing that now anyway. Hagnat, please stop doing this crap, this one can most definitely not be justified for the good of the community it's just an action with questionable judgement.--Karekmaps?! 23:01, 31 January 2008 (UTC)


Of course this is misconduct. You broke a heap of links by deleting the pages without fixing them up, that inconveniences wiki users. I vote for a strong talking to, seeing he got that massive, and unwarrented overreaction last time. Make them into portal pages, Hagnat, with links to where their content has been relocated to (if you arn't going to fix up all the links to them) -- boxy talki 23:24 31 January 2008 (BST)

well, pointing out where all cases in the archives went could be really useful... still, thinking serverwise, in only one page i have deleted 63 edits in a 200kb long page. These edits would be wiped out from the server sooner than if the page was still there. But you idea could be worked out... but not by me in the near future. Going in a vacations now, see you guys in a week. --People's Commissar Hagnat [cloned] [mod] 23:31, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
Well you already did all the hard work. The links were all there in your last edit before deletion. Sheesh -- boxy talki 02:29 1 February 2008 (BST)

Researching some stuff before giving my opinion so don't close the case just yet- Vantar 23:30, 31 January 2008 (UTC) see below - Vantar 01:43, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I have no want to rule here. In the future, I'd probably be better to put these things on A/SD, it seems like things linked to them. That said, he also announced his changes on the Main Page news sections, so it's not like people didn't know what was going on. --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 23:34, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Ruling

Ok I'm ruling on this one but first something I want to address, this was not a completely arbitrary implimentation of a new Arbitration system. This was a needed change to the current system. It was discussed first here were it was established as a good idea. Then later on a bug developed where the wiki refused the show the contents of the oldest archive. The old system was disliked and buggy moving away from it was a good thing. Since Grim just wrote off a requested, discussed and need change as completely arbitrary I immediately become biased against him almost to the point of wikilawyering the crap out of the broken redirect scheduled deletion to fully defend hagnat's actions (it can be done if you ignore the spirit of the rule and blindly follow a twisted interpretation of the letter) but then I noticed the example case at the top of the page. Sysop gets a day ban for filling a speedy deletion request that is placed on the wrong page. It sounds good faith enough with out knowing more of the details yet still the op is banned. If this method was constantly applied throughout all of Hagnats misconduct cases he would be facing a yearlong or permaban by now. This isn't the case and people do weight the good faith motive behind an edit when deciding on misconduct cases (as well as A/VB cases) so there is a discrepancy between how the rules are written and how they are enforced.
Putting all that aside Hagnat did ignore the written policy and he was wrong to do so and should be given an appropriate punishment for that. This is where the discrepancy comes into play. The guildelines say not to do things like this but it does not layout a clear punishment scheme as it does for banning a user unfairly so it is up to the ruling sysop to decided what to do with the offender. Since I am taking on the rule of ruling op I'm naming the sentence. I was leaning towards a "strong talking too" but I dout it will do much good as Hagnat has already claimed if given a chance he would do it again, so asking him not to would be pointless. So I sentence Hagnat and Grim to A/PD! When Hagnat returns from his vacation in a week or so the two of you are to work together to draft a policy on reforming the guidelines to better establish the importance of good faith over rules and vise versa. Grim is included in the ruling because he has been a key player in most these "rules versus editor intent" cases and had been very vocal about being treated unfairly by such cases so I am putting him in a position to prevent any further instances of thos alleged favoritism from accruing. The resuling policy should be clearly worded, refect the wiki's feelings on rules and good/bad faith, and show signs of progress in the first to goals by March. And if either of you are going to complain that this ruling is beyond the scope of my power I shall point you to guidelines as there is nothing in, to my knowledge at least, that says otherwise. - Vantar 01:43, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Case closed - Vantar 01:43, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

*Claps* Awesome ruling.-- dǝǝɥs ɯɐds: sʎɐʍ1ɐ! 02:01, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Just an FYI, those conversations happened so long ago (months, in both cases, the second being of literally no relevance at all) that they really shouldnt apply as leadup. Conversation died on the first of december last year. And the discussions were regarding a list of precedents, not a complete rebuild of the entire system. Its also interesting to note hagnat did not participate. --The Grimch U! E! WAT! 10:05, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm reminded of King Solomon. --Jon Pyre 00:43, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Except for the fact that this will never work. We both advocate contradictory positions on several core principles of the guidelines. Anything that comes of this will be so warped and unusable that its basically crap, or will end in a fight followed closely by us both going "Fuck it". This doesnt address the problem of Hagnat dodging the rules in the slightest. Doesnt even try to. --The Grimch U! E! WAT! 17:19, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
The root of the problem is your differing view points, the idea here is to reach a compromise between your two view points that is acceptable for both of you. I sort of envisioned it involving the creation of predefined punishments for certain actions (akin to the A/VB system) as well some pruning to the wiki's red tape. Hagnet's evaluational has shown that each side has it's supporters and the rules in question need to change to reflect those attitudes as they are currently not reflected in the guidelines. If you are both too stubborn to compromise then neither one of you are acting in the wiki's best interest and should be held accountable for that. I will admit that this would work a lot better if there was a way to lock you together in a room somewhere and not let you out until you could find an agreeable system but sadly it appears that option isn't on the table. - Vantar 17:34, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Except that in refusing to compromise they are both acting in what they view to be the wiki's best interest. Just because they might not agree with each other doesn't make that any less true.--Karekmaps?! 18:43, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Also, I wasn't aware it was now practice to punish users that bring up misconduct cases. Good to know.--Karekmaps?! 18:45, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
They may each be entitled to their own views but neither of them can claim that the current system is what is in the wiki's best interest as it is what has caused this case to be and it is creating division in the wiki community so by doing nothing they can not claim the wiki's best interest. Also I do not see how giving Grim a chance to develop part of the solution to the problem he has been the most vocal about is a a punishment.- Vantar 21:45, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Oh I have no problem with encouraging them to work together on a policy, it's this line that gives me problems.
Vantar said:
If you are both too stubborn to compromise then neither one of you are acting in the wiki's best interest and should be held accountable for that.
As that is specifically punishing Grim for brining up the case, even though it's blatantly obvious that they won't reach an accord through working on a policy together as they both think the other's stance is damaging to the wiki. Sometimes division and drama are good things, this is actually one of those times.--Karekmaps?! 09:34, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
I don't think its a punishment, I think it's a chance for everyone to work together and fix things. Grim and Hagnat don't have to be the sole authors of this thing either, so if they can't reach a compromise alone other users can draft policies based on their concerns. Basically, and correct me if I'm wrong Vantar, the ruling is that we should talk out our disagreements and stop blaming each other. I'm looking forward to seeing what Grim and Hagnat come up with in a week. --Jon Pyre 15:31, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Nothing will come of it, as i have already told you. Even if it does, it will be voted down by the community, who in case you hadnt noticed, do not like me very much. In any case, this "ruling" is anything but a ruling. It doesnt deal with the case itself in the slightest, doesnt do anything to stop hagnat from continuing breaking thr rules to make his silly little point, and it illegally affects the bringer of the case. If vantar werent so damned popular, that alone would be grounds for a case. Unfortunately its already been established that there are different laws for different people, this case being just one more example of that ridiculous concept in practice. --The Grimch U! E! WAT! 08:38, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
Actually Jon, the section I quoted reads more like he's going to punish both users somehow if the policy fails to bring anything useful. --Karekmaps?! 13:45, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
Jon is right in what I meant. There are several reasons the policy could fail and many of them are out of grim and hagnat's hands so punishing them for fail your would just be petty and vindictive. But if they make no effort to even work on the policy then what right do they to comment on the flaws of the system since they refuse to help fix it. Also for grims claims idon't address the problem The root of the problem lies in your differing views on the importance rules, with the ruling you both will have perfect understanding of the important of the rules as you are the ones to establish it, is there any more direct way to address the problem. As for addressing this case, I can't go back in time and stop hagnat from making the edit so I have to look to the future for the solution and the creation of rules that encompass the schools of though around IAR seams to be the best way to achieve that. I am not going to hand out a prison sentence here I'm assigning community service instead. - Vantar 05:32, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

This can be worked out. I am willing to participate on a discussion on how to ease the red tape while still having some accountability for our actions. Ignore All Rules is meant to make the life of the wiki user/sysop easier, but if this is making our life harder by creating this huge amount of discussions, it should also be ignored. A common ground between these distinct point of views can and must be created. --People's Commissar Hagnat [cloned] [mod] 16:28, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

We dont have IAR, and thats the problem. You seem to think we do. The closest thing we have is the ability to ignore the letter of the rule if it runs counter to the spirit of the rule. Thats not the same thing. --The Grimch U! E! WAT! 04:40, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
"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." This pretty much sounds like IAR to me... i admit that i didnt went through the proper channels, but all my actions could have been easily explained if i were asked about them. Anyway, i am willing to accept this ruling, as it seems fair and just for the community, since all this discussion could have been avoided if i had followed through the proper channels in some cases, and you had used some common sense not to accuse people of Vandalism and Misconduct for trivial issues simply because their actions were contrary the exact wording in the rules of the wiki. --People's Commissar Hagnat [cloned] [mod] 11:51, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
You have a spectacularly poor understanding of why i did this, which is odd, because i explicitely spelt out why i did it earlier. What you quote allows minimal wriggle room to get around absurd problems. It does not give you the right to bypass the rules wherever you see fit for your own benefit. Your attempts to do so are an abuse of power. This ruling is a corck of shit because it hasnt even attempted to even mildly chastise you for breaking the rules, illegally applies to the person who broght the case when they have done nothing wrong, and is and all round piece of shit. --The Grimch U! E! WAT! 02:01, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
You are right Grim, he is not being chastised for what he did, that is because he used his power to do some thing good. Had he gone and done something like blanked the main page or starting deleted poorly formated group pages in a one op crit 13 revival then you would be right in him needing a stronger punishment. But that is not the case here he deleted empty pages who's content we had already moved into the new system.He cleaned up after his own mess why should the book be thrown at him for that? As for you claim that it "illegally" applies to you, I ask you which rule, guideline or approved policy I broke in this ruling? I have said this before I did not mean for this to be a punishment for you, I figured that if I let hagnat write the policy himself you would rip it to shreds in A/PD so I am letting you add your input while it is being write so your concerns can be worked into the policy. If you still feel that you are being unjustly punished here then feel free to name another user that is as vocal as you in opposition to the IARs approach and is as knowledgeable of the wiki's rules as you and I will remove you from the ruling on the condition you agree not to stonewall the policy when it gets to A/PD.- Vantar 02:34, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
That's a weak argument Vantar, especially considering that if anyone cared enough to bother starting a case against you right now for how you ruled on this case it could be done. Hagnat didn't clean up a mess, he made one, which has since been cleaned up in a manner that didn't break a massive number of links all over the wiki. You can't punish the person who brought up the misconduct ruling, that's just absurd, we don't punish normal users who bring up misconduct rulings for good reason specifically the one that makes it an abuse of power to punish a user who broke no rules. The point being that you can't rule in any way the effects anyone other than Hagnat, and since it was deemed misconduct saying he did nothing wrong is just foolish, especially considering that it's the very first thing listed under the Administrative Abilities list for what is punishable misconduct when misused. Or, you know, this line; 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. at the end of the first paragraph of the first section of this page.--Karekmaps?! 04:41, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
If you need more read the end of the second paragraph of the same section.--Karekmaps?! 04:43, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
As I have said before no part of my ruling is to punish Grim, anyway the of this isn't to punnish anyone it's to hold hagnat accountable for what he has done. Hagant defense was to claim claimed that the current system is flawed and detrimental to the wiki and that claim is well supported by his evaluation. Because he is claiming that the system doesn't work hagnat is tasked with making the frame work for a working system. If hagnat were to work on this alone the voting on the policy would end up just mimicking his evaluation, the policy would fail and nothing would change on either side. That outcome is not in the best interest of the wiki so I attached grim because I felt that any compromise hammered out between him and hagnat would be found to be acceptable to everyone on the wiki. I have since said grim can name another use to speak for him if he feels that this is a punishment but if you still feel that I am out of line with my ruling then I encourage you to start a case against me, I just ask that neither grim or hagnat rule on it due to the conflict of interests.- Vantar 05:40, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
I also don't say hagnat didn't do anything wrong. He clearly broke rules that have questionable importance, he did not delete the content of the archives, he delete the page they where on after moving that content. The deleting of page move leftovers could be argued but doing so would only side step the issue of the importance of a sysop documenting their actions, my ruling addresses that problem so I stand by it.- Vantar 05:51, 10 February 2008 (UTC)



2008, January 24

It sucks to have to do this, but his flagrant disregard for the rules of this wiki is wearing thin.

Protected a page without going through A/PT as stipulated by A/G. Specifically:


System operators may only protect pages that users have requested be protected on UDWiki:Administration/Protections, or (for a short period, and without the need for a protection request) high-visibility pages that are undergoing repeated vandalism.


There is also the exemption for the scheduled protections, but news archives are not listed there. The only Archive protection thing there is for Administration pages, which the page in question is not.

Given this is rather minor, id only ask for a slap on the wrist, but hagnat has a tendancy to avoid the established rules and procedures on this wiki where it suits him to do so. Since we do not have an equivelent of Wikipedias Ignore all rules policy, we have to expect system operators to adhere to due process. --The Grimch U! E! WAT! 12:26, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

my simple defense: It was an archive page of a community page. We all know it would have been protected if requested, like all other archives of the same page. Why bother ? I created the page and had the powers to protect it. Why involve others in the process ? End of defense. And hurray, 10th misconduct case against me :D --People's Commissar Hagnat [cloned] [mod] 12:31, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
Well, if you want to be able to protect those things, put up a request for it to be included in scheduled protections. Its right there, and avoids this fuss. You knew i was on, so we could have done it all proper in a few moments, but no, you have to ignore the specific intent of A/G... --The Grimch U! E! WAT! 12:43, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
Would i receive a medal ? Or a cookie ? Or a medal ? And the link in my sig is pretty cool, isnt it ? And where is boxy now that we need him most ? --People's Commissar Hagnat [cloned] [mod] 12:45, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
Question: Can a protection request be carried out by the requesting user, if they are themselves a sysop? ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾ 12:53, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
Okay. My take on this? It's all logged. If a page shouldn't be protected, another sysop can revert it and take it to A/PT for discussion. Extrapolating from the rules: If there was no A/PT request, that is restoring things to the state they "should be in", correct? And that should not be misconductable, if there is any justice in this whole convoluted wiki. ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾ 15:46, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Sure we've got an "ignore all rules" policy... here it is right here... not misconduct, he was improving the wiki, he wasn't pushing any personal agendas... he just did what needed to be done. Sure, I'd like to have been consulted... but if anyone can honestly say they'd have made a different decision, then yeah, well consider misconduct -- boxy talki 12:55 24 January 2008 (BST)

Your bias in cases involving me in any respect is appalling, though not unanticipated. You are not welcome to rule on this case. Id like someone who actually respects the wiki to do the ruling, rather than a demonstrably biased dick. The guidelines are clear. Hagnat has broken them. You are just pissy because i beat the stuffing out of you on the Talk:News#l page. besides, where was this sentiment when you decided to rule misconduct on this case against me, and then there was the case against yourself where you got yourself banned for 2 hours for, suprise suprise, Violating due process. DOUBLE STANDARDS LOLOLOLOL! --The Grimch U! E! WAT! 13:09, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
The only double standards are yours, Grim. I learned my lesson from that case (it was only one case, btw, despite you trying to infer there were two separate incidents). If a sysop does stuff that is clearly necessary, despite rules saying they shouldn't be doing stuff... it's not misconduct -- boxy talki 13:37 24 January 2008 (BST)
Actually, in my case the rules never said anything about what i did. It was only you who said anything. In this case the guidelines specifically state that what hagnat did was misconduct. Ruling not misconduct on such an open and shut case such as this, especially with the stuff i have presented here regarding both the case and you personally are grounds for a misconduct case against you. I just dont feel like opening that can of dramaworms right now. Id much rather you just do the right thing and everyone get on with it. --The Grimch U! E! WAT! 13:43, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
Oh good, bring it. You're the only one around here concerned about misconduct tallies... proud you are, of your ability to wikilawyer your way out of trouble... and wikilawyer others into it -- boxy talki 13:48 24 January 2008 (BST)
Boxy, its really, really dissapointing when you persist in taking the bait and making my own points for me. The reason i dont get into trouble is because, suprise suprise, i dont break the rules and guidelines. In this case, i have shown the guidelines prohibit protection of pages without going through [{A/PT]] with only a handful of exceptions. i have further demonstrated, though quite needlessly given how freaking obvious it is to anyone with eyes, the fact that this does not qualify under those listed exceptions. I have also proven, beyond even the slightest flicker of a doubt, that hagnat protected the page. there is no wikilawyering here on my part. the case is as open and shut as it is possible to get. The only person wikilawyering here is you, in specifically disregarding the guideilnes to let a person off, in a demonstrable case of bias in favour of this user when compared to your own not so recent actions on another case, where you jumped on the ban grimch bandwagon without following due process, and then got banned yourself for misconduct specifically for not following due process.
With regards to this case, there is no room for interpretation. There is no gray area. There are no maybes or ifs or buts. The guidelines are crystal clear that this is misconduct. How can i possibly wikilawyer a case when the guidelines explicitely state that what hagnat did was wrong? --The Grimch U! E! WAT! 14:28, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
Akule? -- boxy talki 14:50 24 January 2008 (BST)
I have been summoned. I heard that wikilawyering is apparently bad. Hagnat seems to have followed the spirit of the rules, which as everyone knows, has great precedent here on the wiki. --Akule School's in session. 23:41, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
If by following the spirit of the rules you mean doing something explicitely forbidden by them, then we are in complete agreement. --The Grimch U! E! WAT! 23:45, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

You guys really enjoy teh drama !!1!two!. Grim is not happy only with boxy's ruling... so, let us wait another two or three another sysops to pass by and say their 2 cents. Now, if you two are not happy with this, please go flame eachother in the talk page (this, grim's or boxy's talk page, doesnt matter). --People's Commissar Hagnat [cloned] [mod] 16:52, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I hate this case. There is no question in my mind that hagnat was taking action that he thought was best for the wiki. Unfortunately there is also no question that he cut through the red tape a little too quickly. Hagnat did break the guidelines at that is what this page is about, so regretfully I have to call misconduct on this one. I do also believe that the guidelines should be updated as there are several sections that are outdated and do nothing but create needless redtape or confusions about the rules, both of which are spawning pools for wikilawyering.- Vantar 17:18, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I like Hagnat and all, but Grim's right, unless it's a scheduled protection it shouldn't be protected. The page should be requested or scheduled. "In the event of a system operator requesting a Protection, all the previous points will apply, excepting that a system operator other than the requestor shall review and take action on the request." makes it pretty clear that things like this shouldn't be done. In the future file an A/PT request. If this was your first time here for something along these lines I'd probably rule not misconduct but, your whole misconduct archive is full of stuff just like this, you know better and did it anyway in clear violation of policy. So, sorry but, Misconduct.--Karekmaps?! 17:21, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Ok, so it is misconduct as we need to go through proper channels, but I think no punishment is necessary. It was a good faith attempt to improve the wiki and no one should be punished for such a thing. But until policy change, it's best if you go through the proper channels. --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 21:39, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

AHLG, this is the sixth time he has decided he is too good for the rules, that they dont apply to him. At the very least its a warning. --The Grimch U! E! WAT! 23:46, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
Well I guess. I doubt it'll do anything drastic. --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 00:34, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
I dont think *I* am too good for the rules. I think *WE* all are too good for the rules. Rules are meant to be broken when they only serve to make our lives harder. If we can do our job right for the good sake of the community, there is no need for rules to be followed. And that applies to both the administration team and the common user. --People's Commissar Hagnat [cloned] [mod] 11:43, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
The rules are an essential check on our power, and one im not keen on doing away with. If you want them removed, make a policy for it. Dont break the existing rules to make a fucking point, because all that will happen is you will build up a rather impressive misconduct archive and eventually be stripped of your title. --The Grimch U! E! WAT! 11:45, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
A policy was already being written about this, but i fail to understand why it was withdrawn. I am not doing anything to make a point. I am doing what i have always done for this wiki... using the powers the community have entrusted me for the good sake of the community. And i must quote boxy on you are the only one concerned about misconduct tallies, as i really dont care to be brought to misconduct for doing my job. You want to misconduct me ? Go ahead, misconduct me. I wont give a rats arse and will reply with a single and simple defense of my actions and silly comments for whatever reason you give to say i was abusing my powers. The way i always have worked out with misconduct. My title ? i dont fear losing it... it's there since the old ages, and it had better chances to have been stripped away in the past than any misconduct case you will ever open against me --People's Commissar Hagnat [cloned] [mod] 11:55, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Moved the following back! feel free to make it fit better but I believe this is where it should be left!

"Given this is rather minor, id only ask for a slap on the wrist" Your words at the top of the case Grim.... I agree with you that he has broken the rules but a warning is not a slap on the wrist. Perhaps one of your "soft warnings" that further infraction will be more serious misconduct? --Honestmistake 00:32, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
Unfortunately there is no policy on soft warnings, now is there. --Akule School's in session. 00:38, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
You conveniently left out the "but", Honestmistake. Your selective quoting displeases me. --The Grimch U! E! WAT! 00:49, 25 January 2008 (UTC) "
As for selectively quoting you Grim; I took your 'but' to mean that it was only because he has a history of this sort of thing that you brought it here at all. I didn't realize you meant that you wanted him crucified! I personally can't see any merit in a real warning for something so minor and obviously good faith. --Honestmistake 11:11, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
If i wanted him crucified, i would have been able to make a fairly good case for his removal based on his record. If you read it, the only reasonable way to take what i said was "I would ask for this, but... reason why i wont". Thats teh only way that makes sense given my wording. The rest is just a flight of fancy on your part. --The Grimch U! E! WAT! 11:25, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
That all said, this is actually nothing but a thinly veiled personal attack, and has nothing to do with the case at hand, which is why i moved it to talk in the first place. However, if you are going to moan about it being moved, then im not going to bother. The talk page is traditionally where you and the other vultures try to pound on me, and i fail to see why you should be able to shit up this resolved case here. --The Grimch U! E! WAT! 11:30, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
I was in no way taking shots at you. I was agreeing that he had broken (or at least circumvented rules) I was commenting on my surprise that you were pushing for a warning when your intro honestly didn't read like that to me! I never try to pound on you unless i feel you are wrong and when i agree with you and say so and have defended you more than once... I think your paranoia is getting out of hand here Grim, I really was not trying to attack you and do feel a warning is too strong an action for so small a thing. As for the case being resolved; it isn't. AHLG wants no punishment, you want at least a warning, Boxy says not misconduct and Karek I believe says misconduct but has recommended no action as yet! That is not resolved and given my comment was an attempt at suggesting a sensible middle ground between all given views! --Honestmistake 12:03, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
Paranoia? You deliberately misquoted me. Even if there was no evidence to support either interpretation at first (Definately not true), it would have been made perfectly clear by the request for a warning, and your using of a misquote of the first comment on the subject as an attempt to attack the second was foolish, at best. Its better than the example, where the fictional sysop gets a 24 hour ban for what amounts to the same damned crime. I am hardly paranoid. I wish i were, then i could brush off boxies obvious bias in this and any number of other cases (Including, most blatantly of all, this one) as being nothing more than a coincidence. Its been decided as misconduct 3-1, and the punishment is yet to be decided. Thats fine print. --The Grimch U! E! WAT! 12:25, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
discussion answered on Grims page as this is now starting to "shit up" the page!--Honestmistake 13:55, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
Doesn't the guidelines state that we should have all of the discussion of the misconduct case on this page? Moving it to other pages just causes more work as a sysop will eventually have to move it all back when the case is archived. --Akule School's in session. 14:12, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
Indeed it does, I am not furthering discussion of this case though, I am answering Grims disagreement with me and felt his talk page was the better place. --Honestmistake 14:16, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
Oh, gotcha. Sorry to butt in then. --Akule School's in session. 14:18, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
The example of misconduct is merely that... an example! it does not describe how our wiki works neither how it should works. --People's Commissar Hagnat [cloned] [mod] 12:49, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
Ah, I didn't see this earlier, I believe a warning is the least that should be done in any case that is determined to be misconduct, I have no problem with it being a warning.--Karekmaps?! 17:53, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I fail to see why Hagnat should be punished over this. The common precedent is to ignore the rules when it is perceived to be the betterment of the community. If we were rigid about following each and every rule and policy, we would be following the Copright Policy that Kevan put into place. So why should he be punished for protecting something that is already going to be protected when no one is doing a thing about a whole policy? Is this just a selective punishment and is unnecessarily tying up the Administration pages. Grim himself said it was a minor infraction. Hagnat should be told to just go through proper channels in the future and that be the end of it. Otherwise, if we are going to be rigidly following all of the rules, then "Since we do not have an equivelent of Wikipedia's Ignore all rules policy, we have to expect system operators to adhere to due process" and get rid of all of the copyrighted images that are used without permission. Sound stupid? That's what this whole Misconduct case looks like to me. --Akule School's in session. 13:39, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Akule, please keep your copyright arguments off of this page, it has nothing to do with this case other than involving Sysops. As for who should and shouldn't follow the rules, well, Misconduct and use of Sysop powers is a case where making an argument for "good intentions" won't go very far, once we start making that argument where does it stop? Can Boxy now promote/demote users based on hiw judgement alone without as much as a promotions bid? If you can make an argument as to how protecting a pages from editing without so much as notice(I didn't even know until I saw this misconduct case) benefits the community please do.--Karekmaps?! 17:12, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
I believe it is very relevant for the case. Grim is stating that all of the rules are in place for a reason and should be strictly followed, yet doesn't follow that rule. How does that argument work exactly? Hagnat should follow the protection page rules, but not the copyright policy? Is there some sort of guide that shows what sysops should follow and what they shouldn't, or is this just a thinly veiled attempt to poke at hagnat? --Akule School's in session. 17:23, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Look, i want to simply end this whole story... warn me if you want to, i don't care. It's not like i am not going to strike it in due time :P The only bad thing this will create is poor precedence, and i imagine no one, even grim, wants that. --People's Commissar Hagnat [cloned] [mod] 15:52, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually I'd say doing nothing would create poor precedence. Protecting community pages is something that can cause many major issues when it isn't done correctly or with proper notice, it's essentially squelching discussion and community contribution. But it's not major and it's not like you're going to get banned for it, nor should you.--Karekmaps?! 17:12, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I call for a community vote. I'm saying hagnat acted in good faith and should not be punished. Anyone who's been following things recently will realise that Grim's got it in for hagnat because hagnat ruled not to ban Nali for a year when Grim threw a hissy fit over some borrowed phrase or other. Grim took hagnat to A/VB. Grim edit conflicted hagnat. Grim called hagnat a pussy for discussing a new policy. Now Grim's got hagnat reported for Misconduct. It's pathetic and childish. You'd have to be fucking braindead not to see that this is all a huge, extended spit-the-dummy session, hiding behind the facade of "just following the rules" and generating countless pages of drama. It's sad, really. Why the fuck do so many of you put up with Grim's bullshit? Is it just easier that way? --Funt Solo QT Scotland flag.JPG 17:09, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Funt, further your argument with Grim elsewhere. Hagnat misused his powers, most of the Sysops to weight in agree on that. It's other people putting in their two cents that's furthering this crap filled drama storm.--Karekmaps?! 17:12, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
Is it? Or is it just another case of selective rules, wikilawyering, and spamming up administration pages with fluff cases? Grim was pretty hot about that when it came to me, but not when it applies to his own actions. Interesting, isn't it? --Akule School's in session. 17:18, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
Except Grim didn't start that case, if you're going to try and villainize Grim take is somewhere else too. Your personal arguments with users don't have to do with this case either. You both keep bringing Grim into this but do you understand that you're also implying that all the other Sysops who agree it is misconduct are Grim's sockpuppets? If I thought this were just Grim out to get Hagnat I for one would have ruled not misconduct.--Karekmaps?! 17:28, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
Please don't put words into my mouth. I'm stating that grim is selectively applying rules in this case, and is doing the very same thing that he argued was so terrible. In this case he's sticking to the letter of the rules, but ignoring other rules. Why should Grim be above Hagnat in that regard? Do we have a list of what rules sysops can ignore and which ones they can't? --Akule School's in session. 17:42, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
No, Karek - I'm bringing up these points because I believe that bias in a Misconduct reporter is something that should be considered as part of any case. Nobody else had brought it up, so I did. As I count it, 2 sysops says not punishable misconduct, and 2 say it is, not counting the (obviously, heavily biased) reporter. That's hardly a weight in favour of misconduct. Each case on it's merits, fair enough, but why should each case be blind to a recent history of clear personal enmity, and a pattern of vindictive behaviour? --Funt Solo QT Scotland flag.JPG 17:59, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
Only Boxy has said it isn't misconduct, so far it's 3:1 not counting Grim who reported it. The only thing that seems to be in question is whether a warning should be issued or it should be ignored.--Karekmaps?! 18:02, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
I said "not punishable Misconduct", which includes Gnome, which is where I got my 2:2 from. --Funt Solo QT Scotland flag.JPG 18:06, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
I believe my personal history with Grim has been used against me in past misconduct cases. Are you saying Grim somehow above bias? --Akule School's in session. 18:05, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
Grim has a never been ruled to have committed misconduct, as such it makes me think that it's more about you reporting something that wasn't misconduct to the page instead of being used in determining if it was or wasn't misconduct. History between users has no place on misconduct except if it is the only reason the user is being reported here and not because they actually did commit misconduct.--Karekmaps?! 18:11, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
Just because someone wasn't convicted of misconduct doesn't mean that misconduct didn't happen. There has been plenty of cases where the victim has been put on trial when they report things to Misconduct and Vandal Banning. --Akule School's in session. 18:14, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
You want to continue this discussion do it on my talk page, it has nothing to do with this case, if Hagnat thinks this is Grim targeting him let him argue that.--Karekmaps?! 18:18, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
I was actually expecting it to be more along the lines of The Vista Incident where he pushes someone until they break. --Akule School's in session. 17:18, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
Actually I'd say Vista was as responsible for that incident as Grim, except Vista gets hero worshiped by an insane amount of users on this wiki as the man who can do no wrong.--Karekmaps?! 17:28, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
Grim comes on strong when he wants to and rarely backs down. That will eventually wear on anyone. --Akule School's in session. 17:42, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
Except in that case it was something trivial, i wasnt attacking anyone, and i accidentally hit one of the things that drives vista up the wall. Specifically, i forgot to name who i was referring to as a source. Not a biggie in the eyes of most people, but in his case, it was enough to cause him to overload and take a break. However, that is of absolutely no relevance whatsoever to this case. --The Grimch U! E! WAT! 17:48, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
Doesn't it? Or does it explain why you are constantly hammering on Hagnat? --Akule School's in session. 17:51, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
What on earth are you trying to prove? That i think hagnat went insane, and that he started breaking the rules persistently to make a point? We already knew all that. Honestly akule. Find some arrows for that quiver of yours. You are drawing blanks now. --The Grimch U! E! WAT! 17:54, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
In the past, you've cited the spirit of the rules. Now that you have become a stickler for the rules, I was pointing out that you chastise Hagnat for ignoring wiki policy, yet ignore a policy requested by Kevan. That makes me wonder if you have a list of what rules and policies are okay to ignore and which ones people have to follow. If you want people to follow all of the rules, you should start following them yourself. If you aren't going to follow that policy and cite that it is for the betterment of the wiki community, then shouldn't hagnat be forgiven for doing something that was going to happen anyway? --Akule School's in session. 18:01, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
So i take it you havent examined the post where i debunked that as a load of crap that was illegally added as a policy in january last year by toejam (No vote, no policy), and how, in the form made by kevan, it simply said that whatever a user said on the wiki was his or her own. --The Grimch U! E! WAT! 18:04, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
So Kevan can't request policies to be made and have them put into place without vote? I mean, it is his website. --Akule School's in session. 18:07, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
Of course he can, but if he wants to do that, he has to write the policy. Otherwise its just another policy, and needs to pass peer review, lest someone sneak something really nasty into it. --The Grimch U! E! WAT! 18:12, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
Kevan looked at the policy, and said the following: "All upload and edit pages have boldface warnings against posting copyrighted work, and always have." Should we ignore that statement? Later, he commented on fair use and what copyright law they were following. --Akule School's in session. 18:18, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
Did he add it? No. Did he make it an official policy document? No. So it isnt part of policy. This wiki doesnt actually have a copyrights policy. If you want one, go write one. You seem to be misunderstanding what is meant by owner privelege. Sure, he can request something, but that doesnt make what is created law until such time as he actually says "This is now policy". There is a very important difference between saying "I wish we had policy" and "This is our policy" --The Grimch U! E! WAT! 04:45, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
Prove it. Go to Kevan's page ask him for verification. Otherwise, when each and every page has bold text that says "DO NOT SUBMIT COPYRIGHTED WORK WITHOUT PERMISSION!", that's a policy. Kevan asked for it, it was made, and later categorized. --Akule School's in session. 05:45, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
Telling people not to do something doesnt make it policy. We tell people not to cause drama, but there isnt a no drama policy. We tell people not to post blatantly POV information on the suburb pages, but theres no policy governing that. If you want it confirmed, go right ahead, but it isnt policy at this time. I fail to see why i should go ask for it to be confirmed when ive merely shot down an erroneous assumption held by you and several others. You want it, you go ask for it. Till then, have fun. --The Grimch U! E! WAT! 14:05, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
Is there really no policy regarding POV/NPOV on suburb pages? If there isn't why do we keep getting cases of people removing "inappropriate" posts? Before you start I am asjking this in all seriousness... This type of post seems to frequently land people in Arbies and A/VB. --Honestmistake 00:03, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
This might help. NPOV is covered under an editing guideline and is an accepted community editing standard for certain pages, specifically all Locations pages, and all pages relating directly to game content. It's a standard in place to guarantee quality of articles and to make them useful to as many players as possible. It's an accepted standard and as such is something ruled over exclusively by Arbitration, and not A/VB except for in cases where Bad Faith is involved.--Karekmaps?! 02:16, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
You're reaching, Grim. If you were to tell me not to post on someone's page, I could get vandal banned for doing so, as I was warned. Anyway, what about this section of the protection guidelines: "In some circumstances, protections on a scheduled basis may be required as part of a system on the wiki. In this case, it is not expected that each protection be requested through the Administration pages. Instead, the schedule should be approved by the Community at the Schedules section of UDWiki:Administration/Protections. Approved schedules are listed in the following Subsection." Isn't the news page considered an official page, since it has to do with the game,and should be covered under this clause? --Akule School's in session. 17:22, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
No. Check the list of approved schedulings, and here is the place to request new ones. Please note how it never went through there. Its subject to a peer review of interested parties for a reason. --The Grimch U! E! WAT! 17:43, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
The Protections Scheduling Request was extremely clear on what it covered. And, amusingly enough it seems that The Grimch was the one who wrote it.--Karekmaps?! 21:15, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
LOL WUT? Funt. --The Grimch U! E! WAT! 17:37, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Where is that warning ? I "abused my powers as sysop" and must be warned. And as a sidenote, i am not ashamed of what i did, and will do it again in the future if i feel it's needed. --People's Commissar Hagnat [cloned] [mod] 18:20, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I now demand my warning! I have broken the rules, i need punishment! Why won't anyone warn me ? Ahh, right, only Grim wants to warn me and he can't do it because he created this case. Too bad he can't ignore a simple rule that says otherwise, eh ? --People's Commissar Hagnat [cloned] [mod] 22:23, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
Au contrere petite frere I haven't and don't plan to do it because I'm new and have no clue what the procedure for Misconduct is in that regard. Not to mention that It's only been a day, it would be pretty horrible to simply close the case without time for as many SysOps as possible to weight in their decisions, I don't know, a week might be more reasonable. Anyway yeah, so, uhm, someone else gets to make the move on this one.--Karekmaps?! 22:31, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
Seems fair. But if this case is not ruled before i return from my vacations in February 5th (i am going to a beach in feb 1st, yay), i am going to archive this and rule it myself... as not misconduct. --People's Commissar Hagnat [cloned] [mod] 17:11, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

And still no one's willing to punish Hagnat for such a nothing piece of red tape avoidance. Not surprising really. Misconduct of such minor shit, even if proven, has never been punished with more than a strong talking to. I think this whole case has been more than enough of a talking to to satisfy anyone (sane that is). I say archive the sucker already -- boxy talki 13:04 27 January 2008 (BST)

Actually, i can think of at least one case in the last several months like this that got the sysop in question a warning (Yes, i did the ruling, and it was confirmed by another sysop). Check matts archive. --The Grimch U! E! WAT! 08:44, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Well there's a surprise, you, warning Matt, for something minor... the only reason no one argued was that it wasn't all that minor. He closed and protected a vote that was still in progress. This case is about an archived page of old discussions -- boxy talki 10:48 30 January 2008 (BST)

Ignore all rules on the guidelines

I feel that the following is relevant to this case and was not considered by all of those who are ruling this as misconduct. In the general conduct section of the Guidelines Rehashed policy, you will find this:

  • "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."

--Funt Solo QT Scotland flag.JPG 12:02, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

So we do have "Ignore All Rules" after all ;) --Honestmistake 13:35, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Yes, and Vantar says "There is no question in my mind that hagnat was taking action that he thought was best for the wiki." Therefore, his ruling of Misconduct is brought into question. Gnome said "It was a good faith attempt to improve the wiki", so his ruling of Misconduct is also brought into question. One can even argue that, although Karek ruled Misconduct, he was unwilling to then act upon that ruling, so it also is brought into question. --Funt Solo QT Scotland flag.JPG 13:38, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Careful Funt... you might want to be ready to dodge the incoming "Backseat Mod" attack that is probably going to try and bite you. Quick, I will distract it while you fetch the claymore :)
  • HAGNAT IS INNOCENT.... FREE THE MISCONDUT ONE!!!--Honestmistake 13:47, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Le sigh. The spirit of the rules forcing us to go through the pages ourselves for tasks we could, with our abilities, perform already, is to act as a check against abuse of those abilities and to give other individuals a say in the matter. As a sysop, i am technically a trusted user, and you would cry bloody murder if i did as i would, though i cant say the place would be any better or worse off for it. Due process is important. Violating it has been subject to misconduct for the entirety of this wiki's history. The most recent example was Matts case in August last year. A rather nice quote from it: "Unfortunately, as much as I hate to say it, bad faith is not a requirement in a misconduct case; merely that they were in the wrong.--The General 09:49, 23 August 2007 (BST)". The protections scheduling requests area is there for a reason. Hagnat chose to ignore it (He knew it was there, he voted on one of them himself). This is a case of a sysop ignoring the rules when they didnt suit him, instead of doing the right thing (Which was just as easy, almost as fast, and wouldnt have caused all this drama). Also, this wiki does not have moderators. Also, the policy refers only to exact wording, allowing for a gray area where there may be some wriggle room. When both two years of custom and the guidelines themselves explicitely prohibit such an action (In Word, Purpose and Spirit), that little phrase unfortunately doesnt come into play. But feel free to continue this mindless rules lawyering funt. Its amusing. --The Grimch U! E! WAT! 14:45, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
It wasn't 2007 anymore, it was going to be archived anyway, and one of the things we do with an archive is protecting it. Wouldn't we not have all of this drama, your subsequent barrage of rules-lawyering, and tying up of administrative cases over a simple thing (-coughcough-), if you could let a very minor thing like this go? I'm just sayin' . --Akule School's in session. 15:00, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Please keep your moaning to yourself Akule. In all the cases i have been involved with i have remained with the rules the entire time. If i am guilty of bending the rules a little, then the other side is just as guilty, if not more so. The only reason i am being accused of it, instead of a blanket accusation on all parties involved is because i am the minority opinion, and i just so happen to be an unpopular user with some of the current crop of regulars. That kind of thing makes it easy to dismiss minority claims, not to mention libel the people who are making them. --The Grimch U! E! WAT! 15:06, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
I'm just pointing out that most people don't feel this case warrants a misconduct hearing, and most who agree with the idea of it being misconduct state that it's how the rules are written, but don't feel he should really be punished. The side benefit is my amusement over how your behavior has been on the wiki as of late, and noting how often you "do it in such a confrontational and dramatic manner that they invariably explode into flames", how you "also has a vast tendency to hound people he has a grudge against", and how "Neither behaviour is beneficial towards the wiki". Your words, not mine. --Akule School's in session. 15:17, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Yes, moar personal attacks! The biggest problem here is that i dont hold grudges. I actually like hagnat. However, i hold the law to be above pollution by things such as friendships and whatnot. While you may not think what hagnat did is misconduct, it is. If it were anyone else other than me who had made this case, you and funt would not have jumped on and used it as a foundation for launching more attacks on the person making the case. Unlike you, i look at the long term effects of the rules. If you happen to allow someone to get away with doing this, in the interests of fairness you have to let others get away with doing the exact same thing in future, and by doing so you remove the system of checks and balances on a sysops power. Since you are so paranoid about me, ill use a hypothetical crazy me as an example: Would you like it if the checks and balances on the power i weild were removed? Of course you wouldnt. But you are so willing to let hagnat have his way you amay as well be doing so right now. A wiki wont work when you have two sets of rules: One for the popular and one for the unpopular. --The Grimch U! E! WAT! 15:33, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
None of the other sysops would argue a topic to death or badger people until they back down. --Akule School's in session. 15:56, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
"If it were anyone else other than me". Nobody else would have brought the case, though. And, since you brought it up, I don't buy the holier-than-thou routine you're trotting out here. I can see a direct line of evidence, where your falling out with hagnat over other policy decisions has led here. I see the evidence, and I believe it, because it's there in black and white, far more than I believe you. Acting innocent is a smart debating tactic - but that's all it is - a tactic. To follow the rules blindly, without taking into consideration the circumstances, is, at it's best, stupid. At it's worst, it's horribly manipulative. I don't think you're particularly stupid. --Funt Solo QT Scotland flag.JPG 16:20, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
"this wiki does not have moderators". Well, that's clutching at straws. Are you suggesting that any policy that refers to "moderators" may now be ignored? I like how, instead of now agreeing that there's a rule that lets your colleague hagnat off your hook, you're almost foaming at the mouth to discredit it immediately. Such a shame. --Funt Solo QT Scotland flag.JPG 15:23, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Incredible. You managed to make a personal attack and ignore all but six words of my two hundred and seventy five. Thats only a whisker over 2% of my post you paid any attention to. Care to refute the other 98% mate? Straws indeed... *shakes head* --The Grimch U! E! WAT! 15:32, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
When you talk a lot, but don't really say anything, I reserve the right to ignore the bullshit. --Funt Solo QT Scotland flag.JPG 15:40, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Ah, good ol poisoning the well. If you are going to claim its bullshit, prove it. Put up or shut up. --The Grimch U! E! WAT! 15:43, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
I proved that your Misconduct case was broken, not just in spirit, but in actual policy. I feel little need, beyond that, to refute what's simply your opinion. I mean, if we relied on opinion, instead of rules, why - that would be tyranny! Surely you don't want that? --Funt Solo QT Scotland flag.JPG 15:57, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
The Funt Solo guide to arguing: Deal with points you dont like by ignoring them! I rebutted your claim. You would have noticed this if you had done more than skimread my post, pick out a single, barely relevant comment, and then used it as a foundation for a personal attack. Since you have refused to put up, please piss off and cease trolling this case. --The Grimch U! E! WAT! 16:37, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
No, in your opinion you rebutted my claim. In my opinion, you failed to. The exact letter of the policy quote I gave is clear, and it clearly debunks two of the Misconduct rulings on this page. Only those sysops who gave those rulings can say whether or not they agree. It's not up to you. That's why I ignored your opinion. It's simply not relevant. This is not trolling, by the way, no matter how much you say so. It's new information of relevance to the case. (If I wanted to troll you, I'd hang around your talk page and wind you up for no good reason.) --Funt Solo QT Scotland flag.JPG 16:46, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
If you think i have failed to, show how. As i said before, put up or shut up. --The Grimch U! E! WAT! 16:50, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Only those sysops who gave those rulings can say whether or not they agree. I know you're not blind, so how did you miss that? --Funt Solo QT Scotland flag.JPG 17:03, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Jesus Christ, anyone ever wonder why there's so much drama on a freaking fan wiki for a freaking browser text game? Do you think people on forum about salmon fishing or model trains pepper their arguments with footnotes?! --Jon Pyre 16:02, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Maybe we should just all agree to let this one go. It just seems everyone involved is kind of entrenched and no-one is actualy getting anywhere and notings actualy happening exept exeryone's getting steadily more pissed off with each other and this. Just saying....--SeventythreeTalk 16:34, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
No, Akule and Funt are trolling here, remaining just close enough to the topic at times to use it as justification to keep launching personal attacks against me. Letting it go because an extremely vocal minority are bitching and moaning and troll lawyering constantly wont do this place any favours, and will only make perfectly clear the fact that there are two laws on this wiki: One for those who are popular and have friends, and one for those who dont. --The Grimch U! E! WAT! 16:37, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Well, if you all feel this is worth continuing with. I just don't know what we're trying to solve here, that's all.--SeventythreeTalk 16:39, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Yes, they have done a pretty good job of derailing it, havent they. There was that whole discussion thread where akule and I argued over nothing but the copyrights thing, which has about as much relevance to this case as NGC 1365 does to Earth --The Grimch U! E! WAT! 16:47, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
It's certainly been blown out of all proportion! That's sort of what I mean about it being better to drop this now realy, because this has gone from a case and a discussion about a case to a bile-factory and an agument. Seriously, someone's gonna have to be the bigger man, so to speak and drop it. Might as well be you.--SeventythreeTalk 16:56, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

"Letting it go because an extremely vocal minority are bitching and moaning and troll lawyering constantly wont do this place any favours, and will only make perfectly clear the fact that there are two laws on this wiki: One for those who are popular and have friends, and one for those who dont." Grim you are the vocal minority.... as far as I can see no one else is pushing for any punishment and the balance of opinion seems to be that it is misconduct but only in the most trivial and technical of senses. Someone issue him with a slap on the wrist and possibly alter the protection rules to create a page for Sysops to bypass the request system but list their action so others can clearly see what they have done without living on "recent changes" --Honestmistake 23:29, 30 January 2008 (UTC)


If me doing the dirty work is what it's going to take to shut you bitches up FINE I will do the god damn deed and I'll tell you right now Funt, and Akule, If I ever see you doing something like this again I will find out exactly what the full extent of what I can do to you is and will do it. Don't fuck with the Administration process just to further your vendetta's.--Karekmaps?! 23:41, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Telling people to shutup, and then threatening them, is not the wisest solution to solve this conflict Karek. If you think they are in the wrong, act! use the soft-warning-hammer and warn them to stop shitting administration pages, furthering their drama with Grim s. If they fail to comply, issue official warnings and so. We have entrusted you with sysop powers because we trust your judgment to deal with users who cause trouble in the wiki. As a side note, if you do act, remember to soft-warn grim for taking the bait when he knows not to take it... he must be a Tireless Rebutter :P --People's Commissar Hagnat [cloned] [mod] 23:57, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
I'll be sure to keep that in mind, this case is over, action has been taken, writing the final note now.--Karekmaps?! 00:02, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Final Note

The warning, which was the majority decision in this case, has been issued. This was ruled Misconduct and is now closed. --Karekmaps?! 00:02, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Like i already said, i hold no regrets. Will do it again. A+++++++ --People's Commissar Hagnat [cloned] [mod] 00:07, 31 January 2008 (UTC)