UDWiki:Administration/Misconduct

From The Urban Dead Wiki
Jump to navigationJump to search

Template:Moderationnav

This page is for the reporting of administrator (sysop) misconduct within the Urban Dead wiki. Sysops are trusted with a considerable number of powers, many of which have the capacity to be abused. In many circumstances, it is possible for a sysop to cause considerable havoc. As such, users are provided this page to report misconduct from the System Operators. For consistency and accountability, sysops also adhere to the guidelines listed here.

Guidelines for System Operator Misconduct Reporting

The charge of Administrative Misconduct is a grave charge indeed. If misconduct occurs, it is important that the rest of the sysop team be able to review the charges as necessary. Any charge of administrative misconduct must be backed up with evidence. 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.

Misconduct is primarily related to specific Administrator Services, not standards of behavior. As such, situations including verbal attacks by sysops, while frowned upon, do not constitute misconduct. 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. Personality conflicts between sysops and regular users should be treated just as a personality conflict between two regular users. If, in the course of such a conflict, a sysop abuses their administrative powers by banning a user, blocking or deleting a page without due process, that is misconduct, and should be reported to this page.

There is, however, an exception to this rule - excessive bullying, or 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. Any accusations of this should come with just as clear evidence, and for such an action to be declared misconduct, there should be a clear pattern of behavior across a considerable period of time.

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. Once a misconduct case has been declared closed, a member of the sysop team will mete out the punishment (if deemed necessary), and then move the case to the Archive.

Administrative Abilities

For future reference, the following are sysop specific abilities (ie things that sysops can do that regular users cannot):

  • Deletion (ie complete removal, as opposed to blanking) of pages (including Images and any other page-like construct on this wiki), through the delete tab on the top of any deletable construct.
  • Undeletion (ie returning a page, complete with page history) of pages (including any other page-like construct on this wiki (Images are not included as deletion of an image is not undoable), through the undelete tab on the top of any undeletable construct
  • Protection of pages (ie removing the ability of regular users to edit or move a particular page), through the protect tab on the top of any protectable construct.
  • Moving of pages (ie changing a page complete with the page's history to a different namespace).
  • Warning users reported in Vandal Banning.
  • Banning of Users (ie removing the ability of a specific user to edit the wiki), through the Block User page.
  • Editing of Protected pages by any means.
  • Research IP activity using the CheckUser extension.
  • (Bureaucrats Only) Promotion (providing the above abilities) of User to Sysop/Bureaucrat status.

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.

Example of Misconduct Proceedings

Sysop seems to have deleted Bad Page, but I can't find it in the Archives of either the Deletion or Speedy Deletion pages. The Logs show a deletion at 18:06, October 24th 2005 by a System Operator, but this does not seem to be backed up by a request for that deletion. I would like to know why this is the case -- Reporter 13:42, 28 Oct 2005 (BST)

The deletion was asked through my talk page. I give my Talk page as proof of this. -- Sysop 13:42, 28 Oct 2005 (BST)
You know the rules, Sysop. All deletion requests have to go through the Speedy Delete page. Next time, please inform the user where they should lodge the request. This is a clear violation, will you accept a one-day ban as punishment? -- Sysop2 13:42, 28 Oct 2005 (BST)
I'm not liking it, but I clearly broke the rules, I'll accept the ban. I'll certainly remember due process next time... Sysop 13:42, 28 Oct 2005 (BST)
As punishment for failing to follow due process, Sysop has been banned for a period of 24 hours. This will be moved to the Archive shortly. -- Sysop2 13:42, 28 Oct 2005 (BST)


Before Reporting Misconduct

Due to a the growing number of Non-Misconduct cases popping up on this page the Administration Staff has decided to compile a basic summary of what has been viewed as Not Misconduct in the past. Please read over UDWiki:Misconduct and make sure that what you are reporting is in fact misconduct before filing a report here.

Cases made to further personal disputes should never be made here, harassment of any user through administration pages may result in vandal escalations. Despite their unique status this basic protection does still apply to Sysops.

Misconduct Cases Currently Under Consideration

Hagnat

For banning Sexylegsread for a week over his signature and editing it without giving him the full week to change it. While the week ban was the proper escalation not giving him the week to change it (if it even breaks the "formatting clause") is wrong. The sig does link to the user page and isn't any more annoying than Hag's fake not signed comment signature.

Sexylegsread should be given the week to change it and asked to shorten the length of it so it is less likely to wrap around to the next row, but he shouldn't be banned from having that sig. Hagnat was wrong to bring the case and carry out the punishment when it is at a ban without input from other sysops since it isn't active vandalism. Just the fact that you did that in the first place is misconduct. --– Nubis NWO 23:40, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, technically, 42 minutes... --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 23:58, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
The fact that he did it in the first place is wrong though.--– Nubis NWO 00:01, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
Aye, but he did at least unban him. --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 00:03, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

What part of the policy is not clear? "The handle portion of your signature must link to your user page or one its subpages so that it is easy for readers to learn more about the person behind the signature." Having the link buried in a sea spam letters is in clear violation of "so it is easy to learn more about the person behind the signature".

Therefore, hagnat interpreted the violation correctly. He did not, however, interpret the procedure or the "sentence" correctly. The procedure is very clear: SLR had a week to fix it after being warned before getting banned. --WanYao 04:45, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

I was banned for 10 hours, not 42 minutes. Hagnat didn't get the IP block. Also, it wasn't buried in a sea of spam, it was every sixth "d". Equating to 1/6 of my sig. Also, the policy is not good enough. Also, hagnat had no right to edit my sig in the first place, regardless of if I was being a troll or not. Also, Hagnat had no right to block me in the first place, as he didnt go through the proper avenues, he just banned me. He should have put it up on A/VB and waited for another sysop. So, 1. Hagnat edited my userspace without needing to (my sig, violation of policy or not, did not break any page or the wiki therefore did not require editing from anyone other than myself) 2. Hagnat banned me without using the proper avenues and 3. Hagnat didn't give me the week that the policy entails. Seems like 3 counts of misconduct to me.--CyberRead240 05:08, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Read has been pushing the sig policy deliberately. The week to change the sig is there to give people who are off line a chance to change their sig (especially sigs that arn't templated). There is nothing in the policy disallowing someone else from editing templated sigs (because they are accessible to editing by anyone) to bring them in line with policy, especially sigs that are all over the wiki, like Read's. Hagnat brought it into line, and gave Read a polite (non-escalation) warning about making the user link obvious, and yet Read went right back and did it again. That deserves the next escalation, which is a week ban, which does not require approval by other sysop, although it does need reporting on A/VB so that it can be reviewed, which Hagnat did. Not misconduct -- boxy talkteh rulz 05:30 1 February 2009 (BST)

I'm still trying to figure out where this mysterious "offline" clause came from.
And if someone can edit a templated sig (by your "logic") then they can edit a non templated sig on a page. Why would there be a difference? But they can't and you know they can't. If anyone is allowed to edit someone else's sig page then why would any of them be protected? You don't protect pages that anyone can edit.-Emot-argh.gif--– Nubis NWO 02:55, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
You are pathetic. You would have answered this whole situation a lot differently if this wasn't me, only a fool would think otherwise.--CyberRead240 08:27, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
No, hagnat didn't have business editing it. It's basic page ownership. It's a subpage of his userpage. The sig policy even talks about it in the beginning. You'll also note that the policy mentions editing someone else's sig only when it seriously impairs the operation of the wiki. The way the Punishment section is written, you're not supposed to edit it even if it is deemed vandalism, it's the owner's job to do that after he's unbanned. --Midianian|T|DS|C:RCS| 10:48, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
No, Midianian, this is not "basic page ownership", because this doesn't just affect the user's own page, but every page he's ever signed on, including heaps of other user's owned pages (talk pages). This sig is included hundreds of times across all parts of the wiki. Read had been approached about his sig not complying with the policy, and fobbed it off. Hagnat made an edit to it to make it comply with the policy, and left a polite message about it. Read replaced the with another that was equally as hard to determine who was signing (you need to mouseover all the spam d's until you find one that links to the actual userpage). He even admits that he's deliberately exploiting what he sees as a loophole. If you want to argue that Hagnat had no right to edit the sig, then vandal banning is the place to go, but given that his edit was clearly a good faith attempt to ensure that the sig complied with the sig policy, it's not vandalism, and thus the rollback to an equally confusing sig by Read clearly shows his bad faith attempt at creating yet more admin drama (pretty much all he contributes to this wiki any more) -- boxy talkteh rulz 12:01 1 February 2009 (BST)
No, really, read the policy. It is his page. The fact that it's included on many, many pages limits his freedom with it somewhat but it's still his page, and it wasn't breaking the wiki.
Hagnat didn't just edit it to comply with the policy. If he'd been worried about reconizability, he could've just added a link to his userpage at the beginning instead of completely reseting the sig. I didn't report him to A/VB because the edit obviously wasn't bad faith. However, it's quite possible for edits to be good faith/Not Vandalism while still being inappropriate and revertable.
I'm not disputing that Read was wrong with his sig, but hagnat was also wrong. Two wrongs don't make a right. hagnat shouldn't have edited it unless it was breaking the wiki, impersonation or something like that, and definitely shouldn't have banned him for reverting an edit hagnat shouldn't have done in the first place. Hagnat's actions were excessive and premature. --Midianian|T|DS|C:RCS| 13:13, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
You admit that he's obviously wrong with his sig (for the second time in a couple of days), but want to punish well intentioned wiki users for putting it right -- boxy talkteh rulz 13:30 1 February 2009 (BST)
No, not obviously wrong. It's not against the letter of the policy, only the spirit. And no, I don't want to punish a well intentioned user for putting it right. I want him punished for banning someone who reverted an inappropriate edit. --Midianian|T|DS|C:RCS| 13:59, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

To be honest, we don't need to wikilawyer over the exact wording of the signature policy. The sig was likely to overlap into a section line (hence breaking formatting) and made it difficult to discern who the original user was. It was a blatant attempt to exploit a loophole it the wiki. If read hadn't known that it was breaking the rules then this would have a case but he knew that the signature was in violation of the signature policies yet still reverted it back to its original form. This makes it bad-faith and thus means Hagnat's actions were Not Misconduct.--The General T Sys U! P! F! 13:33, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

He didn't revert it back to it's original form. He tried to bring it more in-line with the sig policies "guidelines". So he failed, according to everyone, he still tried. Hagnat should have let him know that it was still against the rules, not bringing out the hammer.--Suicidal Angel - Help needed? 14:45, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
It comes down to whether or not Hagnat abused his sysop privileges by banning me, and not following proper wiki conduct. He banned me, without complying to the policy. I didn't revert it back to the one hagnat had a problem with, I removed a bunch of the links. If that isn't good enough, hagnat doesn't have the right to ban me, he just has the right to say "no, thats not good enough again", and perhaps revert the edit. Banning was ridiculous and over the top, and an abuse of sysop powers. Regardless of his "intentions" as boxy claims, abusing your power as a system operator is Misconduct. This is a clear cut case, as he violated policy. --CyberRead240 14:55, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
You were attempting to alter it just enough that it passed through the letter rules while still being in breach of the spirit. Hagnat should have got consensus before handing out a week ban but he did not "need" to do so before handing out the ban.--The General T Sys U! P! F! 16:42, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
So, if a user puts an image into their sig that's too big, if they just make it smaller that'd still be vandalism, because although they're conforming to the policy, they're just trying to alter it enough to get it passed through? Huh. Didn't know that. If a sig is against policy, of course they're going to be altering it just enough to get in. If they wanted an entirely different sig, they wouldn't have used the rules breaking one from the start (even if they didn't know it wasn't against the rules from the start). Sexy should have still gotten a week to bring it within policy. Other users get it, and sometimes those other users are given more than that week chance to fix it before they get warned or banned for it.--Suicidal Angel - Help needed? 16:55, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
If they had an image with was 50px tall by 50px wide and they change it to be 14px tall but still 50 px wide then that may get around the clause saying that they may not have a sig "higher then 14 pixels high" but it would still be vandalism because it would still be in bad faith. The only purpose of the sig is to annoy everyone (Why else have multiple links to the same thing?). If he reduced the sig to have only one of each link then he could claim that he was genuinely attempting to keep the sig while complying with the policy. The only contention point is that he should have a week to fix it but even that is still attempting to abuse the rules. Why should everyone have to put up with his signature for a week before it can be changed when he blatantly knows that it is against policy?--The General T Sys U! P! F! 17:12, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
So now redundant links are against policy? When did that happen? There is nothing, I repeat nothing anywhere that says he can't have multiple links that point to the same pages.
Using a loophole doesn't automatically mean its bad faith. So he wants his signature like that? Fine, let him, it doesn't break the policy, especially not now. User link, and easily findable? Check. Does it break any of the existing rules, or the "spirit of the rules"? No. It has no image. Does it impersonate? No. Is it malicious? Again, no. It may be annoying, but there are plenty of other sigs I find more annoying than his.--Suicidal Angel - Help needed? 17:21, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

In my defense, the only crime i admit to be guilty here is failling to correctly unban slr, as i forgot to remove the ip ban. It seems you got that ip ban automatically after you tried to create a new account. Anyway, my bad, and i accept any form of punishment for that. About the sig policy, boxy has already shown that slr is gaming the sig policy, and that he knew it for a long time already. Boxy already said that the one week period for a user to change a sig after being asked by the administration team exists only to allow offline users to have the time to change. I *did* gave a chance for slr to work with the policy and warned him that any edits of that kind would be seen as vandalism, yet he went ahead to revert his sig into something similar to what it look like before, but now with "1/6 of the links to his user page" (but the external links make that amount to 1/12 of his sig space). His actions were, therefore, vandalism. I gave him the benefict of the doubt and after issuing his warning i unbanned him, in order to allow other sysops to give their input on this case (and with 4 sysops saying its against the rules against two, i guess i was right). Resting my defense, i'd like to point out that i am going on vacation in a few hours (yay, summer vacation \õ/) and that i wont be online for the next two weeks, so you might postpone any form of punishment for when i come back. Até mais. --—The preceding signed comment was added by Hagnat (talkcontribs) at 18:11, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Not Misconduct Although the policy states a user has 1 week to change the signature, Its my interpretation that is in the case of either accidental or inadvertent changes to the signature, not deliberate acts of bad faith editing (which ipso facto = vandalism) Where Hagnat got it wrong was not getting some consensus before pulling the trigger...but since doing so is not required when acting in good faith as a sysop...it can be viewed as a mistake but not misconduct. Conndrakamod TAZM CFT 19:40, 1 February 2009 (UTC) who is tired of seeing template signatures and wouldn't miss them if they disappeared entirely)

All this talk over SLR's signature is redundant and missing the point. The sig policy is clear in one very specific regard, if a user has not changed their sig after an explanation then a vandalism case will be brought. Hagnat brought a case, ruled on it and then hit the ban button. This is the misconduct, anything else is academic. Misusing the ban button so blatantly is a matter for immediate demotion.

Also note the lack of objectivity on Hagnat's part, see how he exclusively hunts down SLR, yet says nothing to Nubis who's had an illegal signature for at least a month.... -- To know the face of God is to know madness....Praise knowledge! Mischief! Mayhem! The Rogues Gallery!. <== DDR Approved Editor 19:45, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Huh, so it is! Nubis, would you kindly make the image one pixel smaller in height?--Suicidal Angel - Help needed? 19:50, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
Actually, I happen to think Iscariot's got it right... basically... The sig is vandalism. Clearly. However imnsho Hagnat should have put through through A/VB properly. He did not. Rather, he banned SLR immediately and unilaterally, without even a single sysop's concurrence. --WanYao 20:53, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
Actually, see UDWiki:Administration/Guidelines#When a User May be Warned or Banned. Nowhere does it say that warning or banning a user requires consensus. In clear-cut cases of vandalism, a sysop is fully empowered to deal with it as per UDWiki:Vandalism. If it turns out it wasn't so clear-cut, then precedent says it can be overturned by a majority sysop vote and may go to Misconduct. However, a sysop taking unilateral action does not in itself constitute vandalism or misconduct, provided the action can be shown to have been taken in good faith and/or is backed up by other sysops. </$0.05> ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾ 06:58, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
It also says that The issue is not punishment - we do not punish vandals. Is a week banning for having an annoying SIGNATURE really justified? If that isn't punishment then what the fuck is it? Getting banned cuz your sig is stupid is fucking retarded.--Globetrotters Icon.png #99 DCC 08:53, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
If you feel this way, perhaps you will find this section of the Administrations Guidelines handy, specifically the part that reads: "Also, it is expected that a system operator be prepared to reverse a warning/ban should the community desire it". -- To know the face of God is to know madness....Praise knowledge! Mischief! Mayhem! The Rogues Gallery!. <== DDR Approved Editor 23:14, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Misconduct - We all expected this from me considering I said this type of thing would happen after you guys let him off last time he did this. The report-warn is misconduct even if the action itself was legitimate, you can't report warn unless it's against an active vandal like 3pwv. Also Iscariot, don't comment on admin pages, you add nothing but petty whines, no matter how many times someone says a part of something you say is right the rest of it is still wrong, like in this case. Go be a five year old on someone else's time. --Karekmaps?! 21:13, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Can you throw up a link to which case you're talking about? I think I have an idea, but he does have a lot of cases.--Suicidal Angel - Help needed? 21:42, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
This one, in it I even point out that he was warned for the exact same thing not once but twice in the past and yet they still somehow decide not misconduct. Funny thing is back then their claim was that warnings aren't real escalation but now they're doing the same thing with a "real" escalation. --Karekmaps?! 21:51, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
Also this case where he bans Seventythree unjustly, and hell, Karlsbad rules Misconduct for report-banning both 73 and Nali.--Suicidal Angel - Help needed? 22:02, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
This wasn't an unjust warning, and report-warns have been precedent for a long time. Grim used to do them all the time, and plenty of other sysops (myself included) do so occasionally. They arn't against policy, they're not advisable except in extremely obvious cases (due to this type of misconduct drama), but they're not a misconduct offense, as long as the case is reported on A/VB for others to review (and overturn if necessary). Both of those misconduct cases linked to above were brought because it was believed that they were unwarranted warn/bans. As is obvious from the A/VB case, this decision has been confirmed, and the week ban reinstated -- boxy talkteh rulz 00:14 2 February 2009 (BST)
Bad judgment is always a misconductable offense. Not knowing when report warning is valid and isn't is misconduct. It obviously wasn't valid in this case especially regarding the severity of the escalation. But by all means claim your precedent is more important than precedent dating back to the beginning of the wiki in all but the most recent of cases relating to this. Report warning is not a viable option unless the user in question is an alt vandal like 3pwv or Izumi, you know it, I know it, we all know it, stop acting like you're defending anything but abuse of a rule put in place specifically for dealing with that. It also doesn't help that it would have been a Not Vandalism case if I had not unbanned the user who performed the vandalism because there were no grounds for the ruling of vandalism until after his own additions. --Karekmaps?! 01:18, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

What is this?! I am astounded at the not misconduct calls being made. Sysops can not rule Not Misconduct just because Hagnat was stopping bad faith vandalism, Sexylegsread was banned without using the proper moves, and if you all believe the signature was in bad faith (which I agree it was) then there was nothing that should stop Hagnat from VBing him in the first place. Liberty 01:11, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, they can. Also, I de-bolded your first sentence so nobody confuses it with attempting to make a ruling. ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾ 07:02, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
Notice how the guidelines specifically negate the whole of Kareks reason for misconducting, I quote "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". Report/warning is not ground for misconduct, as long as the case is put on A/VB for review -- boxy talkteh rulz 01:22 5 February 2009 (BST)
Because why the rule exists stops mattering when you can use it justify an argument that is otherwise baseless apparently. #4 Boxy, #4. --Karekmaps?! 06:02, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
There is absolutely nothing ambiguous about "system operators are specifically given the ability to both report and warn/ban a user", and you've done nothing to show that the spirit of the policy is to only apply it to active vandals (other than to state that it's your opinion that it's so). Given your usual hard arsed attitude to Hagnat sticking to the letter of the policy, it's rather ironic that you want to burn him here when he did follow the letter of the policy (and was willing to reverse even that decision, something few sysops do) -- boxy talkteh rulz 08:59 5 February 2009 (BST)

Misconduct - Read should have been given a week to comply. Polite warning -(1 week)-> a/vb -(3 days to change)-> vandal escalation. --ZsL 01:42, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Misconduct. Simple as that. Hagnat was too early with the ban as there was nothing initially bannable. Read didn't revert his sig trolling wise, he tried to bring it within the rules. Good-faith edit in a bout of what everyone else deems bad-faith. Good-faith, which ended up in a ban. It doesn't matter that he may have given grounds for the ban after it came initially. The ban was still before it should have come. Also, I still think a week punishment is a bit more than needed for this case.--Suicidal Angel - Help needed? 00:49, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Misconduct - by a 4 to 3 vote. -Emot-argh.gif--– Nubis NWO 21:29, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

And that's just about the end of the tally. Hagnat can't rule, Thari isn't very active, Sweirs and Daranz never venture here, Cheese and Ross are the only ones left. Just waiting to see if they rule in.--Suicidal Angel - Help needed? 00:34, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Has anyone called for Hagnat's demotion yet? If not, i hearby claim the call as my own. Discuss. --xoxo 07:03, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Extreme lulziness of your butthurt aside, it isn't going to happen. Not over a purely procedural error. --Cyberbob 07:49, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
He's only done one thing wrong hasn't he? and it was simply getting ahead of himself. Liberty 08:50, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
He's done this "one thing" multiple times, and to mention he's been misconducted and "punished" over 7 times in the past three years, and not to mention he's been in this place for cases against him 20 or so times.--Suicidal Angel - Help needed? 12:18, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
You can't count the 20 cases against him due to the fact that anything posted on here is considered a case and there are/were some post happy people that thought file Misconduct first, ask about it later. However, I will give you the 7 cases. -Emot-argh.gif--– Nubis NWO 14:45, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
Oh, Iw asn;t counting them against him. I was just saying he's on this page a lot, whether he deserved it or not.--Suicidal Angel - Help needed? 15:05, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
One thing this time. In true hagnat fashion he's only done one thing wrong at a time. A quick flick over his record shows a trend towards getting ahead of himself. Not that i actually want hagnat demoted of course.--xoxo 11:24, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
then why did you call for his demotion?--THE Godfather of Яesensitized, Anime Sucks Yalk | W! U! WMM| CC CPFOAS DORISFlag.jpg LOE ZHU | Яezzens 12:50, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
coz i think he should be demoted, but at the same time i don't want the entire sysop team to be teamboxy.--xoxo 12:54, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
Am I teamboxy? Because I don't really know who I'm teamed up with these days. Everyone seems to be pissing me off lately. :) Except for you and Bob and your undying love for each other. That's my beautiful oasis in this wiki desert. Emot-argh.gif--– Nubis NWO 14:45, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
Can I have a teamangel?--Suicidal Angel - Help needed? 15:05, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
I'll join Team Angel. But we need cool matching sigs or something.--– Nubis NWO 20:16, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
You pick the sigs. Team Angel, ASSEMBLE!--Suicidal Angel - Help needed? 20:20, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
You can't have nubis, he's in teamboxy along with karek and err, boxy. Together they control teh wikiz! --xoxo 04:34, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
"teamboxy" doesn't even think Hags did anything wrong from the start.--Suicidal Angel - Help needed? 12:55, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
teamboxy don't want hagnat off the team and neither do i. teamboxy and 2 special in this instance are in agreeance. In regards to misconduct occuring here, they aren't.--xoxo 13:23, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Misconduct because he jumped the gun. He definitely should have waited till the week had passed. -- Cheese 01:03, 5 February 2009 (UTC) Actually, I've changed my mind. Not Misconduct. I've re-read both the vandal case and this case a couple of times and come to the conclusion that Hagnat was within his right to ban SLR for the week. The main reason is that because Hagnat provided Read with a polite request to fix his sig, which was then ignored and Read replaced the policy breaking sig. If a user breaks a polite warning, they show they are acting in bad faith (in this case ruled Vandalism by the majority of the sysop team) and receive the next vandal escalation which is what Hagnat did. -- Cheese 01:16, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but where the fuck are you people getting the idea that he replaced his policy breaking sig? Do I have to spell it out for you all, edit by edit, where he tried multiple times to bring it into the rules? The first time, he shortened it, trying to bring it into the rules, makign it easier to find his user page in the links. The second time, he made his user link very noticable. Trying to bring it within the rules. He never reverted it back to its original form, always showed good faith in trying to brign it within the boundries, while still having the sig he wanted. He even fixed the problem Hagnat used as banning him. Come the fuck on people, don't let Hagnat get away scot free because he's part of your damned in-crowd. He fucked up, you all know it. Now fucking admit it. Jesus.--Suicidal Angel - Help needed? 02:17, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
This is the only edit that is relevant to the warning (the one where he did make it somewhat obvious came after hagnat unbanned him). That is an absolutely minor improvement. You still have to mouseover heaps of individual letters to find the user page link. Read admitted he was gaming the system ("you are all fags who cant handle anyone who finds a policy loophole and exploits it") -- boxy talkteh rulz 02:32 5 February 2009 (BST)
Yeah? Minor improvement or not, he still tried to fix the problem (albeit smaller chunks at a time), and Hagnat still was trigger happy with the banhammer. That fact is still there.--Suicidal Angel - Help needed? 02:52, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
It went through A/VB, and was found to be vandalism, and the ban was reinstated. You might have a point if Hagnat had actually got it wrong. You may feel it was a harsh punishment for such a minor piece of vandalism, but the next escalation had to be the ban, regardless of severity. Perhaps it's time for Read to put in a few months of contributative edits and wash off a few of his escalations, eh, instead of simply coming here to get involved in drama -- boxy talkteh rulz 03:01 5 February 2009 (BST)
Reinstated. Right. Not to mention the fact that the ban is still illegitimate as SLR never got his one week to fix it. Sig policy: "warned once and asked to change it. The user has one week to comply". He tried. Honestly, if this wasn't SLR, you guys would have been helping the user figure out exactly what to do with his sig to bring it in-line, and yet still keep as close to as the original as possible. But it's him, especially on a somewhat vague part of the guidelines, and even though he tries to rectify his mistake while still trying to keep as much of his sig as possible (like most users would) he gets pwnt for a week, with no consultation from anyone else from the admin team. But its cool. Let Hagnat just keep getting away with shit, when you said it your self in his last promotions bid that he's not doing the job like it's supposed to be done.--Suicidal Angel - Help needed? 03:28, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
Boxy: Funny thing about that boxy. You just made the point why this is misconduct. Hagnat acted recklessly with the early ban before there were legitimate grounds to view the edit as bad faith, he acted unnecessairally and had Sexylegsread never been unbanned he would never have been punished. Hagnat's actions show exaclty why report-escalations are misconduct when used in cases where the user is not actively vandalising the wiki. Hagnat got it wrong because he acted preemptively and we can not do that, especially when there is an actual attempt to follow the policies as exist as there was with Read(his talk page is where the case should have stayed for at least the week). The sig policy outlines how we are supposed to treat cases like this, it was currently being discussed on Reads talk page(a discussion which you participated in and took his side on if you do remember), Hagnat saw people complaining and proactively reverted it (something that could easily have led to a semi-legitimate VB case had Read not responded), Read altered his sig reducing the number of ds in an attempt to fit it through the "loophole", Hagnat, instead of telling him that it still wasn't OK and furthering the discussion that was already taking place <underline>assumed</underline> any disagreement with his preemptive and improper actions to be in bad faith instead of an attempt to remain in the rules while being annoying and banned him. Even though the discussion on his talk page made it clear it wasn't a simple straight forward case by any means, even though Read was already being talked to about it and given the chance to resolve it without an escalation, and even though Hagnat himself was overstepping the bounds of courtesy on the wiki in the first place. In the process it led to a case where Hagnat himself decided that the ban was improper and was followed up by unbanning him(although poorly) in addition to at least two Not Vandalism verdicts. The only reason this ended up being a Vandalism Verdict is Read shot himself in the foot during the legitimate process that should have taken place in the first place. You can't logically argue that this is in any way incorrect because Read was found after the fact to be acting in bad faith, that's a logical fallacy, he never would have been found to be acting in bad faith if he hadn't been unbanned, this case was made before he was found to be a vandal, this action is misconduct. The more ironic bit is you're arguing the purpose of the week for the Sig policy on the A/VB page as justification for the ban but aruging against what we know to be the purpose of the report-escalate policy for the same reason. --Karekmaps?! 05:03, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
Cheese: Incorrect, I provided Read with a polite request and some discussion as to what was wrong with the sig, Hagnat just came by and edited it without discussion. The difference? Well, if someone did the same to me I would do the same thing Read did because an actual discussion was going on, it's not only rude but it's completely against everything that we always do when dealing with this stuff. The only times someone is justified in doing something like that is in a case where it is actually breaking wiki pages or crashing them entirely(both things have happend). You also need to keep in mind that Read's actions that lead to the ban in question here were in fact ruled Not Vandalism by a majority at the time, he wasn't punished for having a sig that breaks policy but rather why he made the sig, he also wasn't punished for reverting the sig because he was completely in his rights to do that and anything different shows altered treatment of a vandal after the fact. He wasn't a vandal when this case was made, he wasn't escalated for what Hagnat banned him for, and for that matter Hagnat did the equivalent of the O'Reilly Mic Cut, he reverted, Read tried to bring it within policy(even though he was still breaking the policy), and instead of discussing what was wrong with the new sig Hagnat simply banned him. --Karekmaps?! 05:03, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
Sure is butthurt around here. --Cyberbob 05:49, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

I assume that everyone is at the very least in agreement that he should serve at the very least a ban in equal time to the pre-emptive ban read served? --Karekmaps?! 00:48, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

A ban, plus a reminder that this behavior is definitely bad, and can lead to his sysops powers being removed. Also, this is the reminder. :). Is Team Angel (Consists of me. Nubis nevar made our official bff sigs. :'(...)in agreement with the ten hour ban?--Suicidal Angel - Help needed? 01:13, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Umm If I'm counting corectly, with Cheese Changing his mindits 4-3 for Not Misconduct therefore no Ban at all for Hagnat. Conndrakamod TAZM CFT 05:04, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

As long as no more sysops vote misconduct - which looks unlikely that they will. --ZsL 05:18, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
Me waits for the expected fastarchive attempt from Conndraka. And even then are you seriously of the mind that Hagnat shouldn't even serve the initial ban that he himself repealed to allow for the case to actually take place? Even I would expect better than that from you.--Karekmaps?! 05:20, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
1st I wouldn't do a fast archive of anything I try to wait 24 hours after the last constructive edit to archive...and I rarely archive anything anymore. 2nd If the case comes down to misconduct then yea, I agree that a ban equal to the one issued to read before would be an appropriate punishment...IF I agreed that it was misconduct, which I don't for previously stated reasons. Conndrakamod TAZM CFT 05:40, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
Really though there are two problems with that. The first being that you're not taking into account Hagnat's actions when saying he was acting in good faith as a sysop. Acting in good faith would be through the rational and common channels all users are expected to go through in a process like this, he bypassed those to simply revert the edit with no attempt at explanation as to why and then to ban when Read did what any reasonable user would do. Hagnat actually did something we normally dismiss cases of but beacuse he was a sysop he abused a loophole so that the case wouldn't be dismissed by whoever ruled. Second is that your using a rule that exists completely and exclusively for dealing with this to be used to deal with this. --Karekmaps?! 06:02, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
It's actually 4/4. Liberty 05:24, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
He's not counthing nubis because nubis made the case. --Karekmaps?! 05:28, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
Could it be unbolded then? I dare not do it myself. Liberty 05:29, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
He wasn't actually voting, he was summarizing what was the verdict of the case at that time. Although I can certainly see where the confusion comes from. Unbolding for now. --Karekmaps?! 05:32, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
Isn't Nubis the 4th Misconduct? Boxy NM, The General NM, Con NM, Karek M, ZS M, SA M, Nubis M, Cheese NM -- boxy talkteh rulz 08:59 5 February 2009 (BST)
I should be since I clearly consider this Misconduct. There is nothing that says I can't rule on a case I brought up either otherwise why would any sysop ever post a case? I understand that you can't vote on a case against you (even though it isn't spelled out in the rules) but to preclude a sysop from voting on case because they made it is stupid. If we can rule on VB cases that we post then I sure as hell can vote on this. Otherwise, I'll hijack Wiki Martyr and post cases.Emot-argh.gif--– Nubis NWO 09:10, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
Yes, that's why I counted you (or were you talking to Karek?) :p -- boxy talkteh rulz 09:18 5 February 2009 (BST)
After 3 colons my counting gets off. Sorry. :) It was directed at Karek. --– Nubis NWO 09:34, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
I threw in the bold back then. Sorry Karek. Liberty 10:35, 5 February 2009 (UTC)