UDWiki:Moderation/Misconduct/hagnat

hagnat

1. report- warn of Mia Kristos.
2. removal of several users comments. The shut up comment was valid because it was the reason for another case.
3. same shit with CaptainM

--Gage 04:35, 25 September 2006 (BST)

Since this is the third warning that is given to CaptainM, i think i will wait for this misconduct case to end to ban him for 24h. --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{[cloned] [mod]} 04:39, 25 September 2006 (BST)

Too late, agreed and banned 24hr --Karlsbad 04:40, 25 September 2006 (BST)

You see, gage, there is no misconduct case here. I did not reported and warned nobody. I actually warned and then reported them! You see, the vandal banning page is supposed to be used when mods are not active.

the rules says

If you see a Vandalism in progress, don't wait for Moderators to deal with it, as there may be no Moderator online at the time. Lodge the report, then start reverting pages back to their original form.

I was online, i noticed vandalism, i warned the users and then lodged the report of said warning in the vandal banning page and in the vandal data. The only time a moderator is supposed to report a user and wait for the warning is when he is biased against the reported user. This time i am not, since Mia is my friend and i would have reasons NOT TO warn her. Captain M is neutral, so there is nothing telling me not to simply warn them. --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{[cloned] [mod]} 04:47, 25 September 2006 (BST)

I will add to this case a warning of me - It was already ruled not vandalism by Karlsbad--Gage 04:55, 25 September 2006 (BST)

Hum. I might have forgotten to read the entire case and didnt noticed karl already had ruled on it. I just had seen all those fake cases, noticed jjames already had filled a case against you for them, and issued the warning, thinking all that lenghty text was you yelling about it. I will retract this warning once Karl confirms his ruling on this case. --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{[cloned] [mod]} 05:05, 25 September 2006 (BST)

Um, confirmed? --Karlsbad 05:07, 25 September 2006 (BST)

I would also like to add the banning of Gold Blade to this. HE DID NOTHING.--Gage 05:40, 25 September 2006 (BST)

Strange. If he did nothing, why did you filed him on Vandal Banning ? If he is banned its only because of you, you know that ?! --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{[cloned] [mod]} 05:43, 25 September 2006 (BST)

Umm, he's banned because YOU BANNED HIM. That's misconduct easy, so anything to say? --Karlsbad 05:46, 25 September 2006 (BST)

I thought he was saying that he had done something, but completely misunderstood him! Maybe you should actually read what happens on a case before you rule on it. He wasn't banned because of me, he was banned because you are incapable of reading. Don't blame your ineptitude on me.--Gage 05:47, 25 September 2006 (BST)

And can i get my warning revoked per Karlbad's ruling? Hagnat has demonstrated over and over he cannot read.--Gage 05:49, 25 September 2006 (BST)

Moderator - Not misconduct. Read the rules, Gage. Cyberbob  Talk  10:13, 25 September 2006 (BST)

One question though, if Gold Blade was banned because of that comment about Jjames then why wasn't that ruling equaly applied equaly to all of the other cases? That *is* misconduct no matter how you look a it. Hagnat showed bias to a specific user and shouldn't have ruled on his case because he knows that his decision would be bias (yes yes, I know the irony with it coming from me, but thats besides the point at the moment). - Jedaz - 13:57/24/04/2024 10:29, 25 September 2006 (BST)

I didnt rule all cases because i thought i was not the most appropriate mod to rule them. Simply as that. --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{[cloned] [mod]} 15:49, 25 September 2006 (BST)

Gold Blade was banned for admitting that he'd committed vandaism. Moving on. Cyberbob  Talk  10:41, 25 September 2006 (BST)

No he wasn't. He was banned for this edit. I thought he was saying that he had called Jjames Scinfaxi. He really was saying, "I said Jjames, and then at some later, unrelated time said Scinfaxi."--Gage 14:39, 25 September 2006 (BST)

You know what? You're absolutely right. Gold Blad unbanned, and hagnat... once all the other parts of this case are cleared up, whatever punishment he recieves from those will have a 10 hour ban added to it, as that is roughly the amount of time Gold Blade has been banned for. Cyberbob  Talk  14:47, 25 September 2006 (BST)

I really need to be more especific when i ban people. Gold Blade was banned not because of the reported comment, but because of his actions of vandalism in the Vandal Banning page. The Vandal Banning page should be a place where people behave more seriously, since accusing someone of being a vandal is something serious for the Wiki. I warned 2 persons (3, if couting gage, but i am removing his warning now), and had to ban someone simply because they didnt took the page seriously. Since i once were part of the Witch Hunters and behave the same way Gold Blade, i accept the 10h ban, with the hope that my temporary ban will at least make people realize that they shouldnt be joking around in the VB page. --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{[cloned] [mod]} 15:49, 25 September 2006 (BST)

You're an idiot. Being stupid isn't a bannable offence. If it was, you and half the wiki would be long gone. You warned Gold Blade for making that comment. There isn't anything else you could have banned him for. Unless you really did ban him for being stupid, in which case you're more of an idiot than I thought (which is saying something). Xoid did the exact same thing to Amazing and...someone else...can't remember who... a while back. IIRC, you were one of the people screaming for his blood. Cyberbob  Talk  15:59, 25 September 2006 (BST)

I *was* an idiot. I grew up. Lessons learnt from the past of this wiki shows me that this is not the behaviour that we, mods and users, should be taking. Looking back i regreat now from most the things i did in the past. --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{[cloned] [mod]} 16:08, 25 September 2006 (BST)

Bob reverted my warning as i was typing the above comment. Hurrr. --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{[cloned] [mod]} 15:52, 25 September 2006 (BST)

If Gold Blade got a ban for being stupid, then Jjames definetly should.--The General ^{T Sys U! P! F!} 15:53, 25 September 2006 (BST)

Jjames was only following my advice to move all abitration cases to vandal banning, since arb was not the place to resolve "he is being meanny to me" discussions. Most of his cases were stupid, even a rock can recognize that, but vandal banning was the proper place to resolve this cases, and for someone to say "grow up jjames". Anyway, the people i warned were the ones who abused the page and started creating Drama. --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{[cloned] [mod]} 16:00, 25 September 2006 (BST)

MISCONDUCT. As always; telling someone to commit vandalism doesn't absolve the perpetrator of comitting it. Regardless… hagnat, banning someone and warning another over an extremely minor case of spamming was heavy handed. If you are going to argue for heavy-handedness, you should have been applying it in all cases, instead of a select few; i.e. WhyTF wasn't Jjames punished in the same fashion? At least then you could claim consistency and not look like you were selectively trying to interpret the rules.

If you bring up "but God wasn't warned over the same thing" (comitting vandalism after a moderator asked him to, a precedent), then I'll bring up "but Xoid was cited for misconduct over the same thing and was punished for it" (banning someone over extremely minor spamming is considered misconduct, also a precedent). You can't just choose which precedents to follow because you don't like one. –Xoid ^S•T•FU! 03:49, 26 September 2006 (BST)

So, punishment should consist of one warning, for the erroneous warning issued to Mia K, a 10 hour ban for banning Gold Blade, and 24 hours more for CaptainM's banning. I have the tacit approval of the other moderators who have commented on this case as so far all have indicated that you actions were, in the least, questionable. Since no one else has deigned to comment beyond this point, I'm issuing the ban and the warning now. –Xoid ^S•T•FU! 13:30, 27 September 2006 (BST)

Erroneous warning my ass! She was telling jjames to shut up all over the Vandal Banning page! As per CaptainM, I only gave his 3rd warning, but it was Karl who banned him. Read the beginning of this case and you will notice that! --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{[cloned] [mod]} 04:41, 29 September 2006 (BST)

I did read the case, hagnat. Karlsbad merely upped the warning to a ban as is the practice;

Two warnings?

Next incident → ban

Three warnings?

Retroactive ban of the correct level by precedent.

You gave him the third warning, ∴ you're the one ultimately responsible. As to Mia, I already said it once, so I'll say it again: a vast majority of the moderators on my case considered it misconduct to ban someone over spamming in such a minor fashion. You may have warned her, but warning is a moderator-only power, and was an abuse of it. Same thing with CaptainM, you warned someone over something which was not black and white. Finally, you did not warn Jjames for the same thing, you showed him preferential treatment in that regard, making your other actions seem even more questionable.

You've shown time and again that you'll give inconsistent judgements, that in and of itself is a means for concern, but warn-reporting on such a contentious issue was something you should not have done. You're not a child, you should know when to recuse yourself, yet you did not. All in all? Despite you getting a 34 hour ban and a warning, you have gotten off easy. –Xoid ^S•T•FU! 05:22, 29 September 2006 (BST)

Ban handed out as of.... now. Cyberbob  Talk  05:26, 29 September 2006 (BST)

Whoops. Looks like Xoid already did it. Nevermind. Cyberbob  Talk  05:59, 29 September 2006 (BST)

I'd like to bring up yet another of hagnat's transgressions. Gage's warning, which was only retracted (by me) after he made a direct request on M/VB - something like ten hours after it was handed out. It was handed out erroneously, and on a case which another mod had already ruled on to boot. Cyberbob  Talk  06:15, 29 September 2006 (BST)

Looks like Hagnat'll get another 24 hours to reflect on how he should think before he acts. –Xoid ^S•T•FU! 06:29, 29 September 2006 (BST)

Yeah right. Read above and you will notice that i was going to revert that warning but you (cyberbob) did it first. Know what ? Fock off. Ban me if you wish, its not like my opinion in this wiki matters anymore. --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{[cloned] [mod]} 11:48, 29 September 2006 (BST)

Frankly, I'm surprised it took you this long to figure that out. Cyberbob  Talk  11:50, 29 September 2006 (BST)

Whatever. If you weren't such an incompetent halfwit I might give a flying fuck. I hold no illusions; this is a sinking ship, but I'm not going to stand idly by while your impulsiveness tries to scuttle it before its time. –Xoid ^S•T•FU! 13:14, 29 September 2006 (BST)