UDWiki talk:Administration/Misconduct/Archive/Hagnat/2007

From The Urban Dead Wiki
Jump to navigationJump to search

Hagnat

Looks like the sysop in question overlooked this guideline: A user must be warned at least twice (in response to at least two different reports) before a system operator may administer the first ban. -- Atticus Rex mfu pif Δ 22:12, 15 September 2007 (BST)
I pointed that out on the vandal ban page. So...hagnat...I love you?-- dǝǝɥs oʇ ɯɐds: sʎɐʍ1ɐ! 22:13, 15 September 2007 (BST)
No. If the case is extreme where the person will not stop vandalizing, after having it reverted several times, a sysop can permaban the person before a ruling is even created just to stop the vandalism. --Sonny Corleone RRF DORIS CRF pr0n 22:15, 15 September 2007 (BST)
Although that isn't the case here.--  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 22:16, 15 September 2007 (BST)
Ah, but Nalikill is the only one that reverted. 73 filed the request, made his vote, than stopped.-- dǝǝɥs oʇ ɯɐds: sʎɐʍ1ɐ! 22:18, 15 September 2007 (BST)
Even after the report was made they continued to vandalize after it was reverted. Having a report made for you means "stop" since at that point, if you continue, you can be permabanned. Hagnat did exactly what he should've done except not permabanning them. He gave them a 24 hour ban to clean up their mess and punish them for vandalism. --Sonny Corleone RRF DORIS CRF pr0n 22:19, 15 September 2007 (BST)
i disagree. there is no rule stateing administration pages cannot be put up for deletion. therefore it wasnt vandalism in the first place, meaning hagnat had no right to ban them.--'BPTmz 22:33, 15 September 2007 (BST)
So what it basically boils down to is:If it was a bad-faith edit, then the ban is justified because the reverting continued. However, if it was a good-faith edit, it wouldn't be vandalism and therefore the ban is unjustified
Now, I think that we're talking about an attempt to improve the wiki here. That's because if you're out to destroy the page in a bad-faith manner, you blank it. You don't have a poll and a discussion to get community input as to whether the page should exist or not. Byteme42 00:56, 16 September 2007 (BST)
I'm not sure you're exactly someone whose opinion on what is and isn't "bad faith" is able to be trusted, dude. You're a walking bad-faith generator.--Jorm 01:17, 16 September 2007 (BST)
Sometimes in order to disrupt a system you dont destroy it, but you'd rather abuse it in a way that maintaining it is a pain, and the whole thing is no longer used because it doesnt serves its original purpose anymore. That's what happened to the arbitration system a long time ago and the original policy discussion page. --People's Commissar Hagnat [cloned] [mod] 01:18, 16 September 2007 (BST)
How was maintaining it going to be a pain? It should have been left for the 2 weeks vote then kept by any mod with a comment saying something like "HaHa, point made... now stop mucking about" --Honestmistake 10:26, 17 September 2007 (BST)


Next time we do it, we'll put the Vandal Banning page up first. :) Nalikill 01:39, 16 September 2007 (BST)
Next time?!?! That earns you membership status at the assylum mate, for that comment alone.... --Seventythree 01:41, 16 September 2007 (BST)

And, this all is just a symptom of a greater problem....there is a group now (Assylum) that is dissatisfied with the constant drama of the wiki, and so by stirring up as much as they can, and by being as cheerful, random, and rulebending as possible, they point out their dissatisfaction. I personally believe that the problem is that we have forgotten the essentials of this whole ordeal.

It's just a handbook to a freaking game. We treat this stuff like life and death-myself included! But after the completion of this case, I'm going to back off and regain perspective. I'm going to restrict myself to suggestion voting, and status updates. No vandal-drama, no proposals, no headbanging B.S.- just me, being an average wiki user. I would reccomend that all who wish to retain their sanity join the Assylum-as I have made the decision to do- and loosen up about this whole thing. 73's last comment set me onto this chain of thought. Nalikill 01:48, 16 September 2007 (BST)

Well, That is one of our obgectives, certainly. It's taken a bit of a backseat to our campaign to warn everyone of the danges chickens pose to our society, but yeah, we are working on it.--Seventythree 01:51, 16 September 2007 (BST) This insult to Hagnat's greatness will not be forgiven, nor will it be forgotten. You all shall pay! --Sonny Corleone RRF DORIS CRF pr0n 02:28, 16 September 2007 (BST)

Saromu? Talk page or vandal banning, Your choice.-- Vista  +1  02:36, 16 September 2007 (BST)

Well, I'll say this here as I don't want to clutter the case with what is, after all, my own view of things based on the rules, but personal after all. That Hagnat's actions were Misconduct in both cases, I think is pretty clear. He didn't even try to use the proper channels and warn Nalikill before banning him, and banned 73 when his was just the first review, maybe contenious but these kind of edits were historically not brought to A/VB by the Sysops.

That said, his own proposal for punishment is laughable at most. He's one of the first persons to argue that popular vote shouldn't be mixed with Sysops in a way alike to reviews, yet he proposed what would be basically a popular vote on if he was guilty or not. His own "punishment", 1 month demotion, isn't even worth mentioning as such, and avoids what would be a double warning plus a unwarranted 24 hours ban that the normal, standard ruling would carry. Aditionally, he requests to force an user to retract his words if he "wins", thing comparable to forcing apologizes. I'm shouldn't even need to mention that he already has a banner in the MOB IRC channel asking people to vote for him in his Bureaucrat promotion bid since the start of the bids, so his word is ALREADY BROKEN.

Please guys, get serious and either be lenient with him this time around and give him a small but standard punishment (and start being consistent in this lenient behaviour from now on at least) or be fair and punish him with Karl's terms, but do not start the circus proposed by Hagnat or anything like that... --Matthew Fahrenheit YRC☺T☺+1 00:04, 17 September 2007 (BST)

I'm the one who put the banner there, not Hagnat. Me. Not him. He doesn't have any type of authority in the channel. He's just this guy. So blame me and not him for that. You should really do some research before you step in and try to use crap like that as a weapon.--Jorm 00:32, 17 September 2007 (BST)
hey there matthew. Please do your homework right before accusing others. True, there are links asking for people to vote on me for bureaucrat in both RRF and MOB channels, but it wasnt me the one who put them in there, or even asked for it. I don't even have the powers to change the channel topic of the MOB channel!! (but i do in the RRF one). Not only that, said links are in these channels since the start of this promotion round, so i wouldnt have broken my word since none were cast when the links were added to their channel topics. --People's Commissar Hagnat [cloned] [mod] 01:30, 17 September 2007 (BST)
Anyway, about the rest of the stuff... i always said that promotions shouldnt be a popularity contest, but they are. I was always against forced performance review, this isnt. I refuse to say i am sorry when i am not, but a bet is a bet, and if i said that i would admit to be sorry if i lose one, then i would. There was no misconduct in this case, my actions not only ceased the drama, but prevented more to come (if only this misconduct case haven't got this lenghty). i might have been wrong to ban 73, but that was caused by the heat of the moment. And it's strange for you to say that i jumped the gun by warn-banning them, but you said that this was ok in another post of yours. One thing is wrong in a moment and right in another ? Weird that. --People's Commissar Hagnat [cloned] [mod] 01:46, 17 September 2007 (BST)
Or we could drop this entire thing. It's quite obvious that 73, nor Nalikill care about this case, and the only reason it's continued this far is due to other sysops. Think about it. I mean, it's not like it did any real damage. The bans were retracted, and no one got hurt. Can't we just go back to making fun of people on the suggestions page?-- dǝǝɥs oʇ ɯɐds: sʎɐʍ1ɐ! 01:56, 17 September 2007 (BST)
Hagnat: Well, while it's true that I don't know who administers these IRC channels, it's still true that you are already unfairly publicised and bring users to vote on wiki issues that have not much to do on it, not because they're "undesirables" (any new user is a good addition to the community) but because they drop votes in contenious issues without knowing much about them (tell me, how many of the guys brought to vote for you really know what Vista or the other sysops have to offer?). Plus, you do have powers to administer the RRF IRC channel as you say, and you allowed your banner to remain...
I can't find were did I contradict myself about the "jump in the gun" thing... maybe you are referring to my tip to Karlsbad ruling, but I mentioned "report-ban" in the same case by the same Sysop as allowed, not the "warn-banning" you mention. Anyways, what I do believe of this issue is that you ended putting both 73 and Nalikill in the same bag out of impatience and "the heat of the momment", but that's not excuse to jump over the proper channels. The thing that worries me the most is that you didn't even try to warn them first (using the proper channels), or look at the whole picture (not even discerning that Nalikill was the ONLY one conflicting your edits and should have been the only one to get a temporary ban if that was necessary at all) in the very least. That you "ceased the drama" is as a pretext the same as if I permabanned both parties on an Arby case to accomplish the same: does the job but it's unnecessarily harsh. In fact, you ended up generating more drama by not using the proper channels trough the necessity of a Misconduct case. Finally, a Misconduct case shouldn't be ruled with a "bet". You claim you wanted to avoid drama and make such a move? I try to understand you but this is beyond the threshold. Yeah, I don't want you punished or anything, but I'm convinced your actions in this case have been Misconduct and want that recognized as such.
SA: Well, actions have their consecuences. Adulthood and all that. I'm not the most adequate user to explain such a complicated issue, but we need to uphold our rules so next time something more serious is avoided... --Matthew Fahrenheit YRC☺T☺+1 14:12, 17 September 2007 (BST)
I might have the powers, but not the authority to change the RRF topic. Half-ops only have their powers to keep a channel free of trolls, not to start changing stuff around, even if they have such powers. My idea was to cease the drama that was about to start in the deletions page. I successfully done that. Was a harsh solution ? yes, it was. But sometimes you need something harsh to stop things. I tried to be reasonable with them in several occasions in that day, and that was the only solution i found that could put a halt on that situation. If this misconduct case escalated into a more lenghty drama session, i am not the one at fault, since i already solved my situation with both users i have banned. The only thing that is preventing this case to be finished is Vista, who is trying to punish me for something that i am not at fault. --People's Commissar Hagnat [cloned] [mod] 14:30, 17 September 2007 (BST)
First I want to put a stop to the discussion about the bureaucrat election. I don't care if Hagnat has people campaining for him and there's nothing in the rules against it, I'll only say: good for him and that I'm a bit sad that my long uncoördinated membership of the RRF didn't qualify me for any endorsement on those boards. But that's probably my own fault for being effectively feral.
Second, As your bet seems to have nothing to do with this case as it's a regular review about his general conduct instead about this single case I'm not going to take him up on it. I've got little problem with his general conduct. As well as I think that the month long ban as a punishment is just ridiculous. If you want me to say your action were fine, I'm fully willing to say that I was completely wrong and of-base if this is ruled as not misconduct.
Third. Hagnat, I haven't been arguing for you to get punished, as I said before, I think it should be up to you what you would do about it. But yes you are at fault. There were several smarter and non-drama inducing solutions that you didn't even try and that weren't against the rules. I've seen no place where you tried to be reasonable with both of them, so if you please could provide some links to back that up it would be greatly appreciated. It does remain that whatever your defense you unquestionable made mistakes and taking some personal responsibility instead of this complete dodge would probably end this immediatly. I'm far from the only sysop thinking that what you did was misconduct and I'm not even calling for a mandatory punishment unlike the rest.-- Vista  +1  17:34, 17 September 2007 (BST)
I'd imagine if you were willing to vote Jorm's way each and every time something is up on wiki that he is interested in, I'm sure you could have gotten backing too. Scratch his back, he'll scratch yours and all that. --Akule School's in session. 00:28, 18 September 2007 (BST)
I've haven't checked, but I think I actually do vote quite similar to Jorm on the more important things like policies and vandal banning. Jorm might sound a bit harsh in conversation at times, but he usually has a good point regarding the things he puts forward there. And as far as I know Jorm he's not like that at all. Hagnat is just far more active in that part of the community. I've never been much a a meta-gamer, I barely venture outside the wiki, off course people that are primarily active in the meta-community instead of the wiki are going to back folks they know from there as well as here over somebody who they only know only from the wiki. nothing wrong with that.-- Vista  +1  00:42, 18 September 2007 (BST)
Oh, I agree that in most cases he is right. I've just seen some questionable things pop up with his previous NPOV war, and other cases. Sometimes I have to question the efficiency in which his cases are handled compared to others. But other than that, I don't really have a problem with him. Sure, I dislike Nexus War, and I might poke fun at him over it, but I can point out a lot of people who do. It's just my personal preference. --Akule School's in session. 00:57, 18 September 2007 (BST)
You need to do some more research there, chief, if you think Hagnat doesn't make decisions that are against my desires. In fact, that's one of the reasons why I supported him for 'crat: he is and has been perfectly willing to tell me to go stuff myself, especially when my motives may be personal.
As far as "efficiency" goes, I don't really see how my stuff gets handled any faster than anyone else's. If I put a policy up, it still has to sit for 15 days. If I put a page up for deletions, it still has to sit for the time allotted. About the only thing that I might be able to get done with a faster speed is point out vandals - and then just because I can say "hey, a vandal" in one of ten or so IRC channels that have about six different sysops in them.
I may be abrasive and direct ("full of piss and vinegar," as they say back home), but my motives are pretty obvious and fairly unimpeachable: do my best to make the community as fun as possible for as many people as possible. It would probably be difficult for you to find a point where that isn't so; hell: the entire point of the Militant Order of Barhah is to "take fun" to the outlying places where people don't see zombies. I run a huge set of forums for UD, where anyone can get a forum, for free, out of my pocket. I run the largest (if not the) only irc server used by the community. I even wrote a goddamned whole different game to help strengthen overall gaming community (and I usually end up pimping the hell out of UD over there).<br /.As for you not liking Nexus War: I don't know that I could care less.--Jorm 02:50, 18 September 2007 (BST)
I can't believe you whine about this, Matt. It's a vote; there are voting blocs. You know how it works because you've done it (or taken advantage of it) before. Welcome to the year 2007; this is how republics work and have worked since the time of the Greeks. Certain people are trusted to make the right decisions and choices (leaders) and then people can either question those decisions or follow them. In the case of the wiki, most people follow. It's very simple.--Jorm 17:27, 17 September 2007 (BST)

Discussion moved to talk page:

Uh, why only for a month? If I got demoted permanently from my self-review (which was put up entirely of my own volition), so can you. --Cyberbob DORIS CGR U! 22:44, 16 September 2007 (BST)
it's to even the bet... with something so little for me to gain, there is no reason for me to lose that much :P --People's Commissar Hagnat [cloned] [mod] 23:01, 16 September 2007 (BST)
There was no reason at all for Bob to put himself up and he stood down as soon as it was obvious he was not getting support. He hadn't done anything wrong but followed popular opinion... why do you think you should not? --Honestmistake 23:15, 16 September 2007 (BST)
Because i am better than him. He. Seriously, bob had no reasons to put himself in there, but he did. I also have no reasons to go in there, but i'd like to prove that i am not wrong and willing to stay a whole month without mod powers to prove that. This is a bet, and those involved on it can determine how much they are going to lose in case they fail. --People's Commissar Hagnat [cloned] [mod] 01:20, 17 September 2007 (BST)
What about removing yourself from the Bureaucrat running? Could be a less harsher self slap on the wrist... -shrugs---THE Godfather of Яesensitized, Anime Sucks Yalk | W! U! WMM| CC CPFOAS DORISFlag.jpg LOE ZHU | Яezzens 23:17, 16 September 2007 (BST)
That's a really nice idea, i could have that. And while we are at it, why dont we wax our eyebrows and tattoo funny replacements for them ? No, i wont remove myself from bureaucrat promotions, and wouldnt accept that as punishment for whatever wrong i did in this case. --People's Commissar Hagnat [cloned] [mod] 01:20, 17 September 2007 (BST)
Why doesn't hagnat just take the same punishment he gave them? Get a 24 hour tempban and then get it removed in about an hour. It's only fair. And eye for an eye. Sure hagnat aimed for taking off the whole head. But he didn't. So why take off his? --Sonny Corleone RRF DORIS CRF pr0n 01:22, 17 September 2007 (BST)
Terrible idea, given these words: "but Vista will have to admit that my actions were right in the heat of the moment. I also win this bet if i win the Bureaucrat Promotions." This isn't a bet, it's a case, and I don't see how, even if the community does some weird un-de-elect you for a month that means Vista should have to change his stand. Gah. --Barbecue Barbecue 02:21, 17 September 2007 (BST)

Geeze you guys just dont pay attention, do you? Quoted from the start of the page:

Do not clutter up this page any further if you are not Hagnat, Seventythree, Nalikill or a sysop

Please dont crap this up with drama --The Grimch U! E! 05:09, 17 September 2007 (BST)

While I cannot speak for Vista's intentions per the line you quoted, I think it is fair to say that all of us who commented on the section concerning hagnat's self-punishment did not interpret that earlier remark to mean everything that is ever posted here on this page. If you notice, none of us inappropriately commented on the case proper, just on the proposed remedy. And regardless of position, I think all of us had a right and duty to do so. --Barbecue Barbecue 06:09, 17 September 2007 (BST)

Why do we have to believe that 73's edit was in Bad Faith? I don't think it was and I don't think there is a rule saying you can't put Admin pages up for delete (I could be wrong on that one tho) Neither of them deleted anything on the page and their putting the page forwards seems to have followed procedure, the page deletion would have been done (or not) by a Mod after 2 weeks and a bit of gentle humour would have been brought to the page which might just have made a few users take a step back and think. In no way could their edit have caused any damage but it might have caused a bit less drama. To me this seems to have been a Good Faith edit turned into a drama by a mod with no sense of humour and far too high an opinion of his own sense of right. This was misconduct by Hagnat and while i know 73 and Nalikill want it to just go away I think its Hagnat that has lost peoples trust and should think long and hard about where he stands! --Honestmistake 10:07, 17 September 2007 (BST)

73's edit was ruled as not vandalism, however Hagnat was well within his rights to remove the nomination of A/D for deletion. It was not a serious request, just a bunch of tools messing around with important wiki maintenance pages to make some lame point... well they made it in spades, didn't they. They sought out drama, and got it by the bucketload The preceding signed comment was added by boxy (talk • contribs) at 10:40 17 September 2007 (BST)
The only drama here was caused by Hagnats heavy handed approach to what would have been a witty comment on the state of the page. There was no malice and would have been no harm in leaving it up for the voting period. This was censorship pure and simple! --Honestmistake 10:46, 17 September 2007 (BST)
Admin pages arn't your fucking play room. We've have to monitor them, and the god damn drama is bad enough to wade through, let alone letting clowns put up joke cases The preceding signed comment was added by boxy (talk • contribs) at 10:53 17 September 2007 (BST)
I am not saying they are play rooms, but how would leaving the deletion request up have caused more work than deleting it did? Its already ruled that putting it up was not vandalism so defacto it should have been left. If mods/sysops worried that it may lead to a bout of frivilous requests following then a Policy could (and probably now should) be drafted to bar "frivilous" posting on Admin pages! --Honestmistake 11:03, 17 September 2007 (BST)
It's debateably not vandalism to put forward frivolous cases (although they can be interpreted as such, as in SA's A/VB case against himself), but removal of idiocy from admin pages has much precedent, be it removing off topic discussion, flames, or stupidity like this case The preceding signed comment was added by boxy (talk • contribs) at 11:11 17 September 2007 (BST)
Yep, mine was definitely vandalism. I figured if I playfully put up T.Z.'s edit as vandalism, he'd do the same for me, so I decided to hit them both first. I got what I deserved. And it's true, stupidity is removed from the admin pages all the time. And from community pages, but thats a whole 'nother kettle of shit.-- dǝǝɥs oʇ ɯɐds: sʎɐʍ1ɐ! 11:19, 17 September 2007 (BST)
This has gone on way too long, ok? I admit it, I was in the wrong! I was pissing around and trying to make a point and I wound up creating all this crap! Hell, ban me, warn me whatever. I don't care. As long as this all goes away and we can go back to normal.--Seventythree 12:09, 17 September 2007 (BST)
Can we all stop this please? This is going nowhere. Whats done is done, the wiki still runs and no one has died. We have learned from our mistakes, Hagnat made a tiny mistake by banning 73. Nalikill + 73 both feel sorry for the drama they caused, which suffices I think. They are all long time users and not the common vandal. There is no need to punish Hagnat like a bad little school boy. He acted in the heat of the momment and banned both users because he felt that would fix the problem.--  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 04:29, 18 September 2007 (BST)
  1. Misconduct - Not sure if this is a sysop only vote, if it is, then please strike mine.--THE Godfather of Яesensitized, Anime Sucks Yalk | W! U! WMM| CC CPFOAS DORISFlag.jpg LOE ZHU | Яezzens 17:59, 17 September 2007 (BST)
It is.-- Vista  +1  18:01, 17 September 2007 (BST)
  1. comments on grim vote as not misconduct.
    he wrongly banned somebody for 24 hours. It's the traditional punishment in this case, being banned as for as long as the ban you doled out. When I wrongly banned somebody for 48 hours Hagnat ruled that I should take a 48 hour ban eventhough the user had served far less. But I'd rather have a different voting system al together as I don't agree with the punishment either.-- Vista  +1  18:00, 17 September 2007 (BST)
    We should scrap this vote and use the format from the previous example, found under The General, where all possible outcomes listed in the case discussion were listed, and syspos voted on those, rather than a single arbitrary outcome. Link --The Grimch U! E! 18:03, 17 September 2007 (BST)
    That way the misconduct vote would be split, instead there should be a vote for misconduct and not misconduct and a different vote for the punishment.-- Vista  +1  18:06, 17 September 2007 (BST)
    Well, no. There would be the outcomes. Not Misconduct, Misconduct + 3 hour ban (Due to excessive provocation), Misconduct + 23 hour ban + Warning. Simple majority rule. --The Grimch U! E! 18:08, 17 September 2007 (BST)
    But if 12 people would find that it was misconduct but all have different punshments and 2 people would find it not misconduct then it would be ruled not misconduct while the clear majority found the reverse.-- Vista  +1  18:17, 17 September 2007 (BST)
    Thats why you only have 2 or 3 misconduct outcomes. --The Grimch U! E! 18:31, 17 September 2007 (BST)
    even then that could happen. At the moment it doesn't seem it matters though.-- Vista  +1  22:44, 17 September 2007 (BST)
    Not very often, and if it happens, we can just make it up as we go along. --The Grimch U! E! 22:50, 17 September 2007 (BST)
    Probably the best solution would be to lump the misconduct votes all together and determine if it's misconduct or not. From there, if misconduct, determine the punishment by counting the not misconduct votes as the less severe punishment. A second vote as to the punishment wouldn't yeild a different decision (unless someone changes their mind). - If Jedaz = 00:03, 18 September 2007 (BST) then pi = 2 + 1
    I agree completely.-- Vista  +1  00:05, 18 September 2007 (BST)

Hagnat 2.0

Ugh. When did it become sysop hunting season?  Nalikill  TALK  E!  W!  M!  USAI  04:43, 27 September 2007 (BST)

It's not sysop hunting season, it's duck season! Quack! --People's Commissar Hagnat [cloned] [mod] 04:49, 27 September 2007 (BST)
Rabbit season! --Darth Sensitive Talk W! 05:59, 27 September 2007 (BST)
Duck season! --The Grimch U! E! 09:09, 27 September 2007 (BST)
Wabbit Season! --People's Commissar Hagnat [cloned] [mod] 13:04, 27 September 2007 (BST)
Duck season! --The Grimch U! E! 13:32, 27 September 2007 (BST)
Wabbit Season! --People's Commissar Hagnat [cloned] [mod] 14:25, 27 September 2007 (BST)
Duck season! --The Grimch U! E! 18:23, 27 September 2007 (BST)
Wabbit Season! --People's Commissar Hagnat [cloned] [mod] 14:25, 27 September 2007 (BST)
I say it's duck season! And I say FIRE! --Darth Sensitive Talk W! 19:48, 27 September 2007 (BST)
*BLAM* That was my line :P --People's Commissar Hagnat [cloned] [mod] 19:53, 27 September 2007 (BST)
Hagnat, I'm sorry to say this, but you did not complete the required forms in triplicate or apply for the required permission three months prior to making that post. I'm afraid I will be forced to take out a moderation case againgst you.--SeventythreeTalk 19:59, 27 September 2007 (BST)
Gosh, i hate vogons. --People's Commissar Hagnat [cloned] [mod] 20:03, 27 September 2007 (BST)
Tut tut tut.... You're just getting yourself in deeper, did you know that? We're trying to draw up a new U.N constitution on human rights here people! Anyone would think we where building a wikipage for a game, the way you're carrying on!--SeventythreeTalk 20:06, 27 September 2007 (BST)
I'm afraid I'm gonna have to superlaser you all. Unless each mod on this page hits "random page" 3 times and permabans the most recent contributor. --Darth Sensitive Talk W! 06:08, 28 September 2007 (BST)
Retrieved from "http://wiki.urbandead.com//index.php?title=UDWiki_talk:Administration/Misconduct/Archive/Hagnat/2007&oldid=1164494"