UDWiki:Administration/Misconduct/Archive/Hagnat/2006

2006, June 3

When he saw Xoid's errant ban lifted by The General, hagnat decided to issue a 24 hour ban on the flimsiest of excuses.

Hagnat banned me for 24 hours for moving ONE flame-baiting comment by Scinfaxi from the main Vandal Banning page to the Vandal Banning talk page. Moving an unrelated comment to a talk page is never an offence. It's movement of text, not vandalism.

What's more, I had just moved other comments in the same exact manner in relation to the LokiJester vandal case. Where was hagnat then? Oh, right - He wasn't banning for moving talk to the talk page, he was banning because he wanted to ban.

Hagnat said that no note was left when I moved Sci's comment, and that means it's vandalism.

Wrong. Many comments have been moved without leaving a note.

Hagnat said that I left my own comments, and that means it's vandalism.

Wrong. I've moved my own comments before, and left mine in this instance (In reply to someone who wasn't even Scinfaxi) only because it was relating to the case whereas Sci's OBVIOUSLY didn't belong since it was mere flame-baiting. I guess in hagnat's book you cannot move a comment, then type a new message before you save.

I realize that "Banning Amazing!" is a goal that most moderators are aspiring to, but both Xoid and Hagnat have gone for that goal without having the appropriate call to do it.

Hagnat has also shown IMMENSE BIAS by banning ME, while basically telling Scinfaxi how to avoid a ban for obvious bad-faith action. It's astounding how hagnat banned me for something questionable at best (to me, not questionable - he was wrong) yet he goes and almost begs Scinfaxi to try and get out of being banned.

Hagnat needs a 24 hour ban. At least. I also would like to pre-emptively state that it would be quite wrong for Xoid to be the deciding Mod on this case, as it was his errant ban that hagnat was trying to reinstate. -- Amazing 21:07, 3 June 2006 (BST)

What you did differently in the LokiJester vandal banning case was you pruned all discussion off the page. What you did in this case was you selectively removed a post you didn't like and replaced with one of your own. Bad faith, eh? --Lucero ^{Talk U!} 21:32, 3 June 2006 (BST)

What I did in the first case was let it go on, then move it. What I did in this case was move it before it was allowed to go on. Sorry, nope. -- Amazing 22:41, 3 June 2006 (BST)

I never banned you to please Scinfaxi, neither did i avoided to ban him to please him. In my point of view - which prooved right after some messages were exchanged with Scinfaxi - he added that line to the gankbus talk page believing he had the right to, which he didnt have. I already asked him to remove that line and, if he refuse to do so, will ban him again for vandalism.

Hum, i think you want us mods to be like gods, omniscient to everything in the wiki. How could i know that you moved LokiJester's case comments from the main page to the talk page in a very impropper way ? Guess what, someone had to file a complain against you (or anyone else removing comments and not leaving a note about it), which was the case now. You could walk away unpunished simply because no one else took the trouble of reporting it.

I was questioned in the IRC why didn't i banned you for more time, since you already got a ban in the past. Well, that is what the wiki has become, a great beaurocratic paradise. Since LB never filled that ban on the Vandal Data page, there was no way for me to ban you for more time, even if i knew about your first ban.

Someone who is facing some time in the ban limbo asked me in the irc why didnt i ban the side which file the ban against him, even if that side also did vandalised the wiki. Well, my friend never filled a Vandal Banning case, so there was no way for me to help him there.

You see amazing, it is all about filling the complain, and we (mods) can do our work. It's beauracracy, or hope that we spot you doing wrong, --hagnat ^mod 21:49, 3 June 2006 (BST)

As a note. You are accusing someone who already said, and still believes, that you can do immense good to the wiki. I tried to be reasonable with you, i tried to play with you (CGI, remember ?), but you always assumed i was moving in the interest of harming you and your image. Guess what, i never did. But it is easier to assume everybody is trying to bully you, right ? --hagnat ^mod 21:49, 3 June 2006 (BST)

Ooo. Ooo. I was forgetting to talk about it. Lucero covered the entire case here. You moved a single message, and then continued to discuss the thing on the main page. Bad Amazing, bad. --hagnat ^mod 21:51, 3 June 2006 (BST)

Moving talk to the talk page. Not bannable. Not vandalism. Not wrong. Bad Hagnat, bad. Hagnat's 24 hour ban is well deserved. Also, I'm not reading that ranting post. I assume it's full of backpedaling and hastily constructed explainations, but I'll leave it to a Mod to sort through all of it and judge the validity. -- Amazing 22:41, 3 June 2006 (BST)

I see nothing on the Talk page. Explain yourself Amazing, as this is not the first time you've 'forgotten' to move a comment. – Nubis ^NWO 23:28, 3 June 2006 (BST)

I believe Sci moved it BACK to the front page. Let me dig up the "diff" URL. And yes, I see the snot in your comment there. heh -- Amazing 03:26, 4 June 2006 (BST)

Here you go. Boom. Not vandalism. Not bannable. Misconduct. It's funny how the good-faith prevention of a flame war on the front page - weather or not you think I went about it correctly (I moved it, I didn't delete it. How is that wrong?) - has been used by a usually-non-banning Moderator to Ban me. -- Amazing 03:34, 4 June 2006 (BST)

Ok. Great work finding the diff where you move scinfaxi's comment from the front page to talk page. Now, please show us the diff where you tell everybody in the front page that scinfaxi's comment was moved to the talk page ? Cant do it, right?! --hagnat ^mod 07:46, 4 June 2006 (BST)

Do you really want me to dig up the Diff links where Mods and others move things without leaving a note? Give me a break, man. You're asking to be proven wrong again. The question is: Do I need to supply the links since you're already obviously wrong? You're playing such a "GOTCHA!!!" game with little to no definitive wrongdoing that it's actually making me laugh. -- Amazing 18:06, 4 June 2006 (BST)

It has been established in the past that archiving information (Moving it to another page) to hide it from an active discussion to which is is relevant is tantamount to deleting the content and is considered vandalism, and is treated as such. As far as i have been able to determine, you performed such an action, and you got reported and hagnat followed the rules of the page in slapping you down for 24 hours with a ban. Please remember that the misconduct page is for actual moderator misconduct. Not bitching about moderators who do things you dont like (See your cases against myself and Zaruthustra from a while back). It would be nice to see you learn this lesson. My ruling in this case is that hagnat did nothing wrong. Another moderator can drop by and either confirm this or they can state the opposite. Personally im sick of the drama. Let it end Amazing. Same to you Scinfaxi, if you are watching. --Grim s-^Mod 08:00, 4 June 2006 (BST)

thanks grim for the support. I have only one final question to amazing: if my actions were actually biased against you, why didnt an unbiased moderator steped in and (a) removed your ban (b) banned scinfaxi for that suck my balls comment ? the answer is plain and simple: because they were fair rulings for the community. Sometimes fair isnt something one might like that much, just like how it was fair for the community when i banned scinfaxi twice and rasher once. --hagnat ^mod 08:19, 4 June 2006 (BST)

I would have stepped in and unbanned him, but, unfortunately, I am very busy and haven't had time to get on the wiki until this evening.--The General ^{T Sys U! P! F!} 18:04, 4 June 2006 (BST)

I think you meant to put your comment in the Xoid section, because if it was in relation to this case, and you did it, you would have been in violation of the rules of the wiki, and brought up on the charge of moderator misconduct by circumventing a punishment delivered in accordance with the rules of the wiki. --Grim s-^Mod 02:17, 5 June 2006 (BST)

I agree with Grim_s' ruling that hagnat is not to blame in this case. – Nubis ^NWO 13:59, 5 June 2006 (BST)

Hey Grim. The talk page is not an archive page. Sorry. You're working back from hatred toward a reason for action. Again. That's okay, because you're nowhere near alone on that. -- Amazing 18:06, 4 June 2006 (BST)

Amazing. Selectively moving information to another page, such as a talk page, in order to hide it from other users who use the page is tantamount to deleting the informaton. The case i cited involved a person archiving posts he didnt like (Moving them to an archive page, where they wouldnt be found by the casual observer, I think it was to do with the BME), which was effectively the exact same thing you did by moving the specific content you didnt like to the talk page. Amazing. Im too sick and tired of this whole mess to hate anything. Personally i want you, scinfaxi, et al to shut the fuck up and not interact with each other anymore. No i dont particularly like you, but its ridiculous to claim that my motivation for my ruling had anything to do with anything other than precident and rules. You know how big i am on both. --Grim s-^Mod 01:42, 5 June 2006 (BST)

Your entire comment here is pretty empty since I was not selectively hiding information. I was moving flame-baiting to the Discission page. Nothing you say can or will ever change that. :) I know you think it will, but yeah... not possible. -- Amazing 01:46, 5 June 2006 (BST)

Not at all. Fact of the matter is that you, like a slippery little eel, are trying to wriggle out from the consequences of your actions. Unfortunately for you, i dont lose sight of my goal.

FACT: You moved a specific comment to another page in order to remove its influence from an active discussion.

FACT: In the past we have issued a moderator warning against another individual for selectively removing material to another page to remove its influence from the page and active discussion, ruling that such an action was tantamount to deleting the material.

FACT: Flamebaiting or not, trolling or not, you had no right to selectively remove the information (Effectively deleting it).

Under all these basic facts, you did X. We made ruling Y when person Z did X. So we make ruling Y when you did X. Its called Precident, and being consistent. Admirable traits in moderators, something i believe you have asked for in the past when being warned for something. I guess you want equality with everyone, except where such equality results in you getting punished. Hypocrite. Your warning status demanded a ban. You got a ban. Now quit your whining. --Grim s-^Mod 02:01, 5 June 2006 (BST)

Heh. Still trying to change things around? Well.. Okay, here, then:

Fact 1: Wrong. I transferred flame-baiting to the discussion page, and the fact that I had JUST MOVED a arguement/discussion to th e discussion page in the LokiJester case without anyone questioning it shows you to be utterly wrong.

Fact 2: You're citing a different case. In this case there was no bad-faith action, so your "fact" #2 is right out due to being unrelated.

Fact 3: Repeating yourself in a new "Fact"? Weird. Anyway, I moved the discussion from the Lokijester case, and Mods and others have moved comments to the Discussion page when it didn't belong on the front page - So you fail twice with the same comment.

Anyway, aside from your childish, idiotic comments designed to incide anger - You seem to not want equality at all. If I get banned for something others aren't banned for, wellllll that's not equality at all, and I have every right to contest it.

Hilarious. You're outright saying that becuase I didn't accept a ban for something others don't get banned for - I want special treatment. Just the opposite. I don't want any more of the "special treatment" you Mods give me. The kind of special treatement that means I get banned for two (count em, two!) things others are not banned for. I thought you were leaving, anyway? -- Amazing 02:23, 5 June 2006 (BST)

The other user in question recieved a warning. Why? Because he did not have two warnings already, unlike you. You might want to check Vandal Data for your two prior warnings, the listing below are from your section:

1. Warned 02:02, 13 March 2006 (GMT)
2. Warned 01:47, 30 May 2006 (BST)

Now we check policy documents: Penalties for Vandalism After the first two warnings (Seen as recieved above), you get banned for 24 hours. Your ban was exactly 24 hours. The other person was not banned because he had either no warnings on file or one warning on file. Thus your entire post is revealed to be utter rubbish. Honestly Amazing, you can do better than this. You are just making shit up now. --Grim s-^Mod 02:35, 5 June 2006 (BST)

Funny, that's what I'd say to you. I've already laid out why the other case you've cited isn't all that similar, but you don't care, so this conversation's pretty much over. When one person starts operating as if his cited info hasn't been contradicted, I don't think anything can be accomplished. And don't break my links. -- Amazing 03:18, 5 June 2006 (BST)

Amazing, i laid out the previous case for you. I showed how your case and that case were for all essential purposes, the same. I listed the moderator action at the end, and i showed that it was completely internally consistent. You have been making up information to obfuscate the matter and attempt to blur the lines between what you want to claim happened, and the very core essence of the actions, to which i have stripped the matter (There is never any excuse for breaking the rules). As such, my ruling stands: Hagnat is innocent of all charges. Now why dont you take up writing? You are good enough at creating fictions that the occupation seems more than ideal for you. --Grim s-^Mod 03:31, 5 June 2006 (BST)

Well, here, let me offer you this option. Feel free to prove that my moving a flame-baiting comment to a Discussion page was in bad faith. Enough of your off-topic bullshit, get right down to the heart of this case.

Prove the difference between my moving one comment to the Discussion page vs. my moving the other comment to the Discussion page. -- Amazing 03:35, 5 June 2006 (BST)

I dont need to. Deleting another persons comment and replacing it with one of your own is pretty much the definition of bad faith. Deleting other peoples comments (Which this amounts to) is not on. Also, i do not see how it is flamebaiting. It is a statement that could have come from anyone and is a statement about a case reprimanding you from another user. Just because you are a hair trigger psychotic doesnt mean everyone is out to get you. If you feel someone is flamebaiting you, dont respond. You avoid fights that way, and you arent made to look like an idiot. Again. And again. And again. And again. And again. And again. --Grim s-^Mod 04:25, 5 June 2006 (BST)

Thanks for proving my point and lying by saying I removed someone's comment and replaced it with my own. I moved the commend to the Discussion page. The obviousness of your false nature makes me feel much nicer. Do everyone a favor and just disappear. -- Amazing 04:39, 5 June 2006 (BST)

As has already been stated, repeatedly, removing a comment to another page in order to conceal it is tantamount to deleting the comment. Honestly Amazing. Can you at least TRY to present a challenge, instead of making an idiot out of yourself? (I feel like i am asking the impossible with that).--Grim s-^Mod 04:45, 5 June 2006 (BST)

I presented you with the challenge to prove it was moved to conceal it. You danced around and avoided that challenge like a skilled ballerina. I didn't appreciate you archiving the case below in order to conceal my comments. I think you need to be banned. (See? I can make stupid claims about someone else's motives, just like you!) Shall we take this to my talk page? -- Amazing 05:20, 5 June 2006 (BST)

What's that Kettle? Pot is calling you black? You're one to talk about dodging the point, Amazing. –Xoid ^S•T•FU! 05:24, 5 June 2006 (BST)

Feel free to repeat what I haven't given an answer to. On my talk page. -- Amazing 05:26, 5 June 2006 (BST)

The action itself was proof enough. You moved a single comment in the edit. A comment reprimanding you for misusing a page. The implication is crystal clear. You removed it because you didnt like it. Your action was tantamount to deleting it. You are not permitted to delete other peoples comments. You were reported for it. You were banned. Now shut the fuck up and stop trying to cloud the issue with your endless whining. --Grim s-^Mod 05:28, 5 June 2006 (BST)

I moved it as "Flame bait" mostly because of the last line, and for the fact that it was restating what was already said, basically, in hopes of more response. It wasn't deleted, it was moved. Other folks have done it. Other folks will continue to do it. The only issue here is that I was the one who did it in this case. You're transparent. You're wrong. You're done. *pause, thoughtful stroke of chin* Bitch. -- Amazing 05:34, 5 June 2006 (BST)

Amazing you illiterate little troglodyte. We have been over this before. You are not allowed to delete other peoples comments. Period. The reason does not matter. Your removal of the comment to another page was effectively deleting it. Thus you were banned. --Grim s-^Mod 05:41, 5 June 2006 (BST)

PS: Lose your fucking persecution complex. You have completely failed to show other people getting away with anything remotely relevant. --Grim s-^Mod 05:46, 5 June 2006 (BST)

Grim s you illiterate little troglodyte. We have been over this before. Users are allowed to move other peoples unnecissary discussion to the corresponding talk page. Period. Your lies do not matter. My move of the comment to another page was not effectively deleting it. Thus you are wrong.

PS: Lose your fucking God complex. You have completely failed to make sense in that last line. -- Amazing 05:48, 5 June 2006 (BST)

Once again you demonstrate your complete lack of imagination by duplicating everything i said, without a care to the fact that you are blatantly lying. You are not permitted to delete other peoples comments. I bet you a dollar that if i deleted one random comment of yours and posted it on the talk page without notification you would jump all over me. gfact of the matter is that you are a lunatic who wants a special set of rules for you, where nothing you can do is wrong, while at the same time being granted the ability to hound and abuse anyone you feel like. Such behaviour is not on and is not tolerated. --Grim s-^Mod 06:00, 5 June 2006 (BST)

Once again you demonstrate your complete density by failing to see I copy your words to save my time in talking to a fool who is blatantly lying. I am permitted to move other peoples comments. I bet you a dollar that if you deleted one random comment of mine and posted it on the talk page without notification, it would be different becuase you'd choose it at random as opposed to moving a new flame-war incitement. Fact of the matter is that you are a lunatic who wants a special set of rules for me, where everything I do is wrong, while you hound and abuse anyone you feel like. Your behaviour is pretty idiotic and is not honest. -- Amazing 06:08, 5 June 2006 (BST)

Final Note on this Case

First comment by Scinfaxi:

Well, last time I checked I wasn't under any ruling. Also, it's on my talk page and a group I frequent. There is absolutely no vandalism here. It's nice to be back on the vandal page though. Scinfaxi 05:51, 2 June 2006 (BST)

Second comment by Scinfaxi:

This report was obviously made in bad faith. Amazing is clearly aware that no posted rules were broken in this case. If he has problem with existing rules, this is not the place to post them. I demand punishment (I'm lighting my torch as we speak)! Scinfaxi 06:13, 2 June 2006 (BST)

Both were in the same report, and are saying the same thing. The second comment was not a reply to me, but a new statement. The second was an obvious attempt at baiting an arguement. As such, I transferred it to the appropriate place.

End of story.

I'd be interested to see other Mods weigh in as per Grim s' comment: "Another moderator can drop by and either confirm this or they can state the opposite."

Either way, I'd be interested to see what thoughts are on his decision that banning someone for moving unnecissary flaming to a talk page is okay. -- Amazing 05:40, 5 June 2006 (BST)

As i said above: You are not allowed to delete other peoples comments. Period. The reason does not matter. Your removal of the comment to another page was effectively deleting it. Thus you were banned. --Grim s-^Mod 05:44, 5 June 2006 (BST)

Nah, it was moved to the talk page, as Mods and users do all the time. -- Amazing 05:48, 5 June 2006 (BST)

And they leave a notification, and move the entire discussion. You moved a single comment without a notification, hence the banning. --Grim s-^Mod 06:00, 5 June 2006 (BST)

We've both seen moving without notification, and the "entire discussion" was his comment, because thankfully I didn't reply to him AGAIN for the SAME MESSAGE. :) -- Amazing 06:27, 5 June 2006 (BST)

In the middle of a conversation. –Xoid ^S•T•FU! 05:52, 5 June 2006 (BST)

Dude. No, it wasn't in the middle of a conversation. Look again... or for the first time? It's a complete rehash using different phrasing, tacked on only to incite more drama. -- Amazing 05:59, 5 June 2006 (BST)

Pol Pot! Pot! Stop calling the kettle black, will ya? Jeeze, that reasoning is dense, even from you. –Xoid ^S•T•FU! 06:02, 5 June 2006 (BST)

Sorry I corrected you lying or making a mistake about where the comment was. -- Amazing 06:04, 5 June 2006 (BST)

Note: Judgement was given as Not Guilty by Grim s and was confirmed by Nubis. --Grim s-^Mod 02:26, 6 June 2006 (BST)

2006, May 6

Violated the three strikes rule here. It's not a major offence and it was corrected, so I think a minor punishment would be appropriate. --RedKnight 03:27, 6 May 2006 (BST)

*Sigh* that user had only vandalism as his contributions. And vandalism against the CDF, who everybody knows is a targeted group in this wiki because of amazing and the whole drama around him. As i see it, this account was merely created to attack that page, and then discarded by its creator. No one complains about how we ban PQN on sight, why should i wait this user to vandalize again to ban him ? --hagnat ^mod 03:33, 6 May 2006 (BST)

Full support from this end, hagnat. --Cyberbob240^{CDF - Arb - W!} 03:36, 6 May 2006 (BST)

I believe misconduct is like vandalism: It requires malice. Hagnat felt he was doing his duty, and it's no big secret that vandal-only users have been perma-banned before without warning. Let this one go. --Sirens^{T RR} 03:38, 6 May 2006 (BST)

Hagnat is in the right. Stop trying to be like Amazing.--Jorm 04:20, 6 May 2006 (BST)

Yes! Be more like Jorm. Contribute nothing to this site or life in general. -- Amazing 06:21, 7 May 2006 (BST)

OK. Jorm made a joke, Amazing replied to it. Now, both of you. Stop! --hagnat ^mod 06:31, 7 May 2006 (BST)

No one complains when we ban PQN on sight because he has created dozens of alt accounts.--The General ^{W! Mod} 14:34, 6 May 2006 (BST)

Are you saying the Hagnat should be up for misconduct? --Sirens^{T RR} 14:44, 6 May 2006 (BST)

He's saying that there are other cases where people have been banned without warning, and describing the fact that there is little difference between those cases and this particular one. I, for one, agree. --Cyberbob240^{CDF - Arb - W!} 14:46, 6 May 2006 (BST)

Thats completely different from what I got out of it, but okay --Sirens^{T RR} 14:47, 6 May 2006 (BST)

What did you interpret it as? --Cyberbob240^{CDF - Arb - W!} 14:55, 6 May 2006 (BST)

I assumed that he was refering to the point I made about other users having been banned without warning. --Sirens^{T RR} 14:56, 6 May 2006 (BST)

Hang on. We're in complete agreement! --Cyberbob240^{CDF - Arb - W!} 14:59, 6 May 2006 (BST)

Not really. You stated he's comparing the two, and stating there isn't any difference, thus supporting Hagnat. The way I see it, he's stating that theres a big difference from the person HAgnat banned and PQN, thus putting Hagnat in the wrong. --Sirens^{T RR} 15:03, 6 May 2006 (BST)

OK... *passes out in confusion, managing to write this before consciousness slips awa-* --Cyberbob240^{CDF - Arb - W!} 15:05, 6 May 2006 (BST)

I'm saying that there is a difference but that Hagnat was not in the wrong as he felt he was doing his duty.--The General ^{W! Mod} 16:54, 6 May 2006 (BST)

Oh, okay. Yeah, I guess I agree. --Sirens^{T RR} 18:57, 6 May 2006 (BST)

Hum. I got myself confused somewhere in this thread. But it seems everybody but RedKnight is ok with my ruling against micheal.j. Thats it ? Case closed ? No drama ? No one loves me here :( --hagnat ^mod 22:58, 6 May 2006 (BST)

well he did say you needed a small punishment, as long as you are truly sorry: ten hail mary's and one our father and don't forget the box for the poor.--Vista ^W! 00:42, 7 May 2006 (BST)

---

2006, August 13

The lord witnessed hagnat going outside regulations. Twice. (here and here.) If Moderators here can do this, please make a guideline amendment and expidite the racist OWS and OBS pages. -- (GOD) † ^God 21:54, 13 August 2006 (BST)

I'm going to assume that you mean the Sonny's Delusion thing on the M/D thing? But your link doesn't go to anything specific that shows misconduct. --Darth Sensitive ^W! 22:10, 13 August 2006 (BST)

And I see that you beat me to it in the edit conflict... --Darth Sensitive ^W! 22:10, 13 August 2006 (BST)

Yes, the log file quickly filled up with many deletions and the two mentioned were buried. -- (GOD) † ^God 22:11, 13 August 2006 (BST)

When people start using some common sense, things like Sonnys Delusions wont need to be placed for voting for deletion. There is no way that page could improve the wiki, and it only served to attack and offend sonny. We all know that voting would pass, so why wait two fucking weeks to get rid of something that stupid from the wiki ? --hagnat ^mod 22:16, 13 August 2006 (BST)

Would you be willing to apply this to all cases equally, in particulate the racists ones of late? The voting is quite clear on those cases, and they are offensive to more than one person. -- (GOD) † ^God 22:18, 13 August 2006 (BST)

As you can see i placed my vote for deletion on both pages. These pages are offensive, yes, but only to those who want to be offended by them. It doesnt target anyone directly, and they make fun from both sides. Sonnys delusion page, in the other hand, is a page targeted directly at sonny, with someone impersonating him on it. Bad faith to the top! --hagnat ^mod 22:28, 13 August 2006 (BST)

It belonged on Speedy Deletions but I wasn't exactly sure what category it belonged under so I did the only thing I could think of. Deletions. Sonny Corleone ^{WTF RRF ASS} 22:37, 13 August 2006 (BST)

You could have filled it under Off-Topic. --hagnat ^mod 22:40, 13 August 2006 (BST)

I'm all in favor of it being dumped ASAP, but until the policies get changed, there shouldn't be shortcuts taken. "It would have gotten the required spam votes" and "Nobody wanted it to stay" shouldn't be excuses to go against wiki policy. If you feel the rules should be changed, make a policy, I'll most likely support it. --Darth Sensitive ^W! 23:38, 13 August 2006 (BST)

Moderators are allowed to use common sense while doing they work in the wiki, would that be a good policy ? Look, just leave common sense away from the policy discussion page, or it will be no longer "common sense" and just a new rule. --hagnat ^mod 00:01, 14 August 2006 (BST)

I'm sorry but the guidelines are quite clear and others have been punished for this. The Lord thinks this needs to not become a long spamwar and we need to wait for another moderator to judge this. The Lord expects that there will be a movement to remove the OWS and OBS pages if there is no guideline violation here. You want to overrule every singe guideline on the wiki? Fine, but apply it equally and not just to a couple things that offend one person. Go for the big problems as well. -- (GOD) † ^God 01:00, 14 August 2006 (BST)

If 'others have been punished,' where's the evidence? – Nubis ^NWO 01:04, 14 August 2006 (BST)

The Lord will do you one better and just direct you to the example on this page. There are rules. There is a system. Do not go outside of it for special treatment. If Sonny gets to have something that offends him personally removed, can the entire wiki not have racist material removed? -- (GOD) † ^God 01:24, 14 August 2006 (BST)

If the 'Lord' is such an omniscient and omnipotent being, certainly it would be much more useful to show me, a mere mortal in your site, the Evidence you claim to have. As the Lord is also infalliable, I'm sure you have some like you claimed. – Nubis ^NWO 01:31, 14 August 2006 (BST)

God, stop being a petulant child. Sonny Corleone ^{WTF RRF ASS} 01:40, 14 August 2006 (BST)

The Lord is a busy man. Look yourself. Encur not the wrath of God upon your heads. -- (GOD) † ^God 01:45, 14 August 2006 (BST)

Or what? You'll smite me with your Amazing smoting powers? Sonny Corleone ^{WTF RRF ASS} 01:50, 14 August 2006 (BST)

The Lord God need only await your descent into the firey depths of hades, and God has infinite patience. -- (GOD) † ^God 01:55, 14 August 2006 (BST)

That's Lucifer's realm. God has no power there. It's Amazing that you still keep up this god act especially when everyone else hates it. Sonny Corleone ^{WTF RRF ASS} 01:58, 14 August 2006 (BST)

The Lord wonders if you are perhaps on crack. It is absurd to presume that any realm is beyond the reach of your Lord God. -- (GOD) † ^God 02:20, 14 August 2006 (BST)

I actually am quite amused. I do however, think that the link to his talk page should read "Pray". But that's just me. --Darth Sensitive ^W! 02:23, 14 August 2006 (BST)

Ok, outside all this trolling, Hagnat did wrong when skipping the normal proceedings. The page was (maybe wrongly, maybe not) put for deletion, two weeks didn't pass, and he deleted it. Period. By saying this I don't presume that he should be strongly punished or anything: the final decission is up to our moderators. If my oppinion is of any weight here, he should be (unoficially) warned not to jump over bureaucracy ever again. --Matthew Fahrenheit ^{YRC | T | W!} 02:32, 14 August 2006 (BST)

That's my opinion too. --Darth Sensitive ^W! 02:40, 14 August 2006 (BST)

Honestly, I thought about reporting this too--Gage 02:57, 14 August 2006 (BST)

I bet you did. Cyberbob  Talk  02:58, 14 August 2006 (BST)

What the fuck is that supposed to mean?--Gage 03:03, 14 August 2006 (BST)

I think it's supposed to mean that it's quite obvious that you'd be the first to snitch on someone. You're also the last person to be trusted in the mafia. Sonny Corleone ^{WTF RRF ASS} 03:05, 14 August 2006 (BST)

Exactly. Cyberbob  Talk  03:23, 14 August 2006 (BST)

Looks like everyone's agreed that it's misconduct then. Should we undelete the page?--The General ^{T Sys U! P! F!} 03:08, 14 August 2006 (BST)

I don't agree to it. It belonged on Speedy Deletions. I didn't realize. Hangnat then did the right thing and Speedy Deleted it like it would have been. Just because our two Valachi's are out to get the mods doesn't mean he did anything wrong. Sonny Corleone ^{WTF RRF ASS} 03:13, 14 August 2006 (BST)

Info: One 'Keep' vote blocks a speedy deletion case. -- (GOD) † ^Pray 03:18, 14 August 2006 (BST)

edit conflict FTW. If it had been put on Speedy Deletions, I have a feeling the author might have gotten a Keep vote in there and gotten it put on M/D. --Gage 03:19, 14 August 2006 (BST)

I don't remember the author even taking the time to vote keep on it while it was on Deletions. With the Amazing Saga it was removed even though it had Keep votes. Sonny Corleone ^{WTF RRF ASS} 03:24, 14 August 2006 (BST)

Mistakingly or not, it WAS put for Deletion instead of Speedy Deletion. Get over it. I will stay out of the flaming until some Mod rules over this, as any grown up person wuold do. And thanks for making a template just for us: I didn't even know who that guy Valachi was. --Matthew Fahrenheit ^{YRC | T | W!} 03:25, 14 August 2006 (BST)

He sold out on everyone for personal gains. You know what he got in the end? Nothing. Snitching get's you no where in life. Sonny Corleone ^{WTF RRF ASS} 03:26, 14 August 2006 (BST)

Snitching ain't always wrong. -- (GOD) † ^Pray 03:31, 14 August 2006 (BST)

There's a difference between reporting something wrong and becoming a rat. Sonny Corleone ^{WTF RRF ASS} 03:33, 14 August 2006 (BST)

	Oh Snap!
	Someone just got served!

--Gage 03:34, 14 August 2006 (BST)

Template:Snitch Sonny Corleone ^{WTF RRF ASS} 03:34, 14 August 2006 (BST)

Was that directed at yourself? Because you are the worst offender--Gage 03:36, 14 August 2006 (BST)

I'm giving it to you to put on your user page. I'm just that nice of a guy. Sonny Corleone ^{WTF RRF ASS} 03:42, 14 August 2006 (BST)

In this instance, shouldn't this be directed at God?--Gage 03:45, 14 August 2006 (BST)

Nope. You said it yourself you wanted to report Hagnat and then you reported Xoid. You're as untrustworthy as they come. Someone does the slightest thing wrong you're willing to put their whole reputation on the line just so that you can get a tiny personal gain. Quite low in fact. Sonny Corleone ^{WTF RRF ASS} 03:48, 14 August 2006 (BST)

I said I 'thought about' reporting this. Like I said, I have nothing against Xoid, I am really just trying to set a new precedent with those cases of 'vandalism' than anything else. Xoid is just the one who made the mod action, nothing else. Xoid is my favorite damn mod on the wiki. I promise that I will fight it if he gets anything more than a slap on the wrist.--Gage 03:54, 14 August 2006 (BST)

Okay. It would be very useful if all of the unimportant chatter about templates, favorite moderators (really warms my heart, Gage), etc. were stopped, since it clutters up the page unnecessarily. Now, to the heart of the issue: Hagnat, regardless of how obvious it may be that something will or will not be deleted, we as moderators do not have the authority to presume to know for certain the outcome ahead of time. Every page gets its fair chance at being kept or being deleted. The fact that you're unapologetic, Hagnat, and that you apparently think that you're above the law disturbs me. The pages should not have been deleted ahead of time. I will restore the deleted page (the image, of course, can't be restored), and you will receive a warning. Case closed. –Bob Hammero ^{Mod•B'crat•T•A} 04:57, 14 August 2006 (BST)

2006, September 2

Warned D4rk N00b, completely bypassing vandal banning in the process. –Xoid ^S•T•FU! 22:29, 2 September 2006 (BST)

\'\'13. Suggestions created entirely for the purpose of satire, insult, or comedy are considered vandalism and \'\'\'treated appropriately by moderators.\'\'\' If you want to post a joke suggestion put it on the Humorous Page. \'\'

I treated his suggestion properly by removing it from the suggestion page, and then warning him. Where is the misconduct here ? this is what we are supposed to do. --overlord hagnat ^mod 22:31, 2 September 2006 (BST)

I think Xoid is referring to this part on M/VB: \'\'For consistency and accountability, Moderators are requested to note on this board their actions in dealing with Vandals.\'\' --Brizth ^{M T} 22:34, 2 September 2006 (BST)

Actually, no. I\'m referring to the fact that you aren\'t supposed to act on your own report, hell, Hagnat didn\'t even make one in this case. If a report/warn on a non-PQNesque vandal is a no-no punishable on M/M, then surely a warn with no-report is worse. –Xoid ^S•T•FU! 22:39, 2 September 2006 (BST)

I am still trying to cypher what you said Xoid, but i guess that the Suggestions page rules clearly say that someone making humourous suggestions on it are automaticaly to be considered vandals, therefore a report shouldnt be needed :\\ I should have reported it after the warning was given, but i forgot about it :\\ --overlord hagnat ^mod 22:45, 2 September 2006 (BST)

While they are automatically considered vandals, as it is a strict liability offence, you\'re not supposed to hand out the warning yourself. The only exception to that is for vandals who are in the middle of a page blanking/moving spree. Even if you had reported it after you warned him, you would still be here. –Xoid ^S•T•FU! 23:01, 2 September 2006 (BST)

Well, i still think i did nothing wrong. Let\'s wait for other moderators to state their opinions on this. In the meantime, i added \'warning users\' to the list of things moderators can do that regulars users cant. --overlord hagnat ^mod 23:59, 2 September 2006 (BST)

Hm... this is tricky. We\'ve got loads of precedent to suggest that this kind of thing is punishable, yet what D4rk N00b did was clearly and objectively vandalism - unlike what happened in General\'s case. Maybe a slap on the wrist? I dunno... Cyberbob  Talk  03:04, 3 September 2006 (BST)

I\'ve been staying away from this, especially since I warned Hagnat last time his name showed up here, but here are my two cents: I haven\'t seen whatever D4rk N00b did, but I trust that it was indeed vandalism. I personally think that the \"can\'t report and warn\" rule is incredibly stupid, especially when it comes to clear-cut vandalism. However, we do have rules, however broken they may be, saying that we aren\'t allowed to do that. But I\'m still not a fan of following rules just for the fact that they exist — rules are only as good as the reasons behind them, and if we all agree that the rules are flawed, there is no reason to follow them. My suggestion would be to say \"Hagnat, that was naughty,\" archive this case, then finish revising the damn moderator guidelines so that we don\'t have to come back here in the future. –Bob Hammero ^{Mod•B'crat•T•A} 06:11, 3 September 2006 (BST)

I don\'t know whether that rule even exists, and if it does, then it wasn\'t put there by a vote.--The General ^{T Sys U! P! F!} 08:05, 3 September 2006 (BST)

It was an interpretation of the rules by Grim S made during a misconduct case. It has some precident but no actual definded rule.--Vista 19:55, 4 September 2006 (BST)

I think we \'\'\'really\'\'\' need to sort this rule out.--The General ^{T Sys U! P! F!} 20:02, 4 September 2006 (BST)

Are you guys just making misconduct cases for the sake of misconduct cases? Misconduct, but not serious. So I take Bob\'s suggestion \"Hagnat has been a naughty boy\". \'\'\'Case closed\'\'\'.--The General ^{T Sys U! P! F!} 08:04, 3 September 2006 (BST)

2006, September 25

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 - 20:20/1/05/2024 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)