UDWiki:Administration/Sysop Archives/Hagnat/2008-01-31 Re-Evaluation

Administration » Sysop Archives » Hagnat » 2008-01-31 Re-Evaluation

Hagnat

I submit my position as a sysop for evaluation. I have been working as a sysop for almost two years, and have been in all sides of the ruling clique of this wiki, from opposition to tyrant. I have burned witches, i have been misconducted 10 times (11 with my current one), 6 of these times with the ruling clique finding me wrong and punishing me for my actions. Nonetheless, all my actions were always for the good of the wiki, with some few exceptions. My contributions history is long and wide, with several running core systems working in the wiki created or tweaked by myself. The {{Suburb template}}, the suburb danger system, the suburb history page, the way policies are discussed, buildings danger level, the main page layout, and, most recently, my work on the arbitration page and it's archive. You can also notice that recently i have worked toward to give all users more powers to contribute to the wiki, facing minor but very vocal oppostion, and ways to protect our users from rogue sysops, which triggered another policy that is about to pass. I work to make the wiki a fun place to be, and use my sysop powers to make my life easier to provide this community with all this cool tools, which are also easy to be used. I'd like to point a few things: a) i will keep bending the rules as they please me b) i will keep working for the good of this community c) i will oppose anyone who thinks that our users can't be trusted. Said that, i wait for this community evaluation of my status as a sysop. --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{[cloned] [mod]} 16:14, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

1. Vouch - I am willing to vouch for this user. I don't always agree with him, but I believe wholeheartedly that he edits purely in good faith for the good of this wiki. It seems obvious to me that certain other users are using red tape and wiki-lawyering to repeatedly attack him and attempt to have him demoted, for purely personal, bad faith reasons. Regarding his bending of the rules in order to facilitate faster editing, that is allowed for sysops: in the general conduct section of the Guidelines Rehashed policy, you will find this: "[Sysops], as trusted users of the wiki, are given the right to make judgment calls and use their best discretion on a case-by-case basis. Should the exact wording of the policies run contrary to a [sysop]'s best good-faith judgment and/or the spirit of the policies, the exact wording may be ignored." --Funt Solo ^QT 16:29, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
2. Vouch - So am I. He works hard to keep this place rolling along, even if it means bending the rules a little for the greater good. And to be honest, there's nothing wrong with that. -- Cheeseman ^W!RandomTalk 16:33, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
3. Vouch - I don't see how this is required. --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 16:46, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

   Third vouch Received at 16.47 31st January (UTC)

4. Against - I like hagnat. I really do. I like him a lot, and he is one of the exceptionally small number of people i consider to be a friend (The fact that ive been forced to report him twice really hurts. There is no vendetta, despite what Funt would have you believe). That does not, however, mean i can overlook the obvious fact that he is working against the very principles upon which the power of the sysop is based. That principle is transparency. All of a sysops actions in an official manner should be subject to public scrutiny, and possible objection. On numerous occasions he has undermined this by skipping this step. Most recent, right after he was convicted of misconduct for doing the same thing. This isnt a person who cares for the community and the guidelines that run it. He is a rogue sysop, doing whatever he likes, whenever he likes, and fuck the rules, fuck consultation, and fuck you. You are not worth consulting. It wastes time, he says.
   The community deserves the right to have its say, and hagnat has repeatedly denied that to the community. He is also the most oft convicted person on this wiki of administrator misconduct, on occasion banning users because he didnt like what they were doing. I refer you to the deletions up for deletions scandal that happened last year. Hagnat is a great user. There are no doubts there. However, he is NOT a good sysop. He denies the community a chance for a say in matters where they are entitled to one, he ignores the rules, both in word and spirit, wherever he disagrees with them. And even when told that he is in the wrong, he announces that he will go ahead and keep doing it anyway. This is a man who doesnt give a shit about anyone or anything. A person who arbitrarily enforces without consultation. This is not the kind of person we need as a sysop. --The Grimch ^{U! E! WAT!} 16:47, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
5. Vouch - The day he begins to ignore the rules for the purpose of pure bad faith edits I will be against, until then I have no objection to Hagnat. - W 17:28, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
6. Vouch - I agree with the other vouches, written above.--'BP^Tmz 17:37, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
7. Vouch - Hagnat does his job good --~~~~ [talk] 17:40, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
8. Vouch - I have few concerns about Hagnat's ability to perform as a sysop. He has not "bent" the rules to his own advantage, or in bad faith, therefore I don't have a problem with it. The only real concern I have is not with his actions, it's more to do with the possibility of setting a precident for someone to do similar in bad faith.--Seventythree^Talk 18:25, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
9. Vouch - Sometimes you have to do unpopular things to do what is right for the sake of a resource that should be appropriate for anyone to use. Hagnat has and I am sure continue to do that. If you ever need suport for something that isn't popular but should and or NEEDS to be done, call me. Conndraka^{mod TDHPD CFT} 18:46, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
10. Vouch as above, he does more good than harm. and at least his antics are entertaing (most of the time).----Sexualharrison 19:15, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
11. Against no, no, no, no. He's demonstrated so many times he's prone to misconduct and rule breaking.--Finis Valorum 19:38, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
12. Vouch - We disagree on many issues, but he does what he honestly thinks is right without trying to twist the rules to his advantage. If that gets him in hot water, he cops his punishment on the chin. Good show. --Cyberbob ^{DORIS CGR U!} 20:36, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
13. Vouch - The fact that he seems willing to compromise with almost anything rather than taking a point and senselessly arguing it into the ground like a majority of the wiki here does says loads to me.--THE Godfather of Яesensitized, Anime Sucks ^{Yalk | W! U! WMM| CC CPFOAS LOE ZHU | Яezzens} 20:58, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
14. Vouch - From all I've seen of you on the wiki, you're a good guy. You have my vouch. --Hhal 21:17, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
15. Vouch --Banana reads Scoundrell for all of Yesterday's News, Today! 21:20, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
16. Vouch with a handful of cookies. --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ ^{#nerftemplatedsigs} 21:39, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
17. Vouch Anti-Grim Vouch. Omega 22:07, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
18. Vouch After reading up on Hagnat's misconducts, I'm convinced he's not a power-tripper of any kind. Like anyone entrusted with responsibility, he's forced to make judgement calls - sometimes he's missed. Big friggin deal! I fully support any effort to cut red tape anywhere, and this Wiki is drenched in crimson.--Actingupagain 22:29, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
19. Vouch Grim makes a vaild point about Hagnat not caring about the rules but he is wrong to say that means he doesn't care for the community. Bureaucracy has a place but it should not come at the cost of progress. Hagnat is practically the definition of Be bold which is an attitude that the wiki would benefit from more people having. A Sysop's actions should be good faith attempts to serve the wiki and there is no question Hagnat's are.- Vantar 22:52, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
20. Against - Roughly the reason why your misconduct archive is so big. You frequently ignore the rules for your own convenience and are misinterpreting IAR as a method of making things easier for you without actually considering why certain procedures are in place. You're a good guy but since you have said that you will continue this type of thing and seem to have no intention of even trying to consider what might be wrong with what you have done I can't knowingly vouch for that.--Karek^maps?! 22:55, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
21. Vouch - I'm not doing this to spite Grim, as a few people are doing. I'm not doing this because I'm "friends" with Hag either. I'm showing my support because he seems to want to do good for the community, and still does. And a good job at that. He may mess up a few times, or go off on his own (But hell, he's still helping the community more than harming it) but he's still doing his job just fine. Hagnat, in my opinion, shouldn't be the one here, putting himself up for evaluation. I think it should be Grim. I have nothing against Grim specifically, he really seems like a good guy (I know, crazy to think it, but I believe it), but lately, meh...Good luck haggie, and keep up the good work.-- dǝǝɥs oʇ ɯɐds: sʎɐʍ1ɐ! 23:22, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
22. Vouch - Not that I love the letter of the law less, but that I love the spirit more.  Nalikill  ^{TALK  E!  W!  M!  USAI}  23:26, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
23. Against - I agree with alot of the people who have vouched. He is a good user, however I am concerned with him ignoring rules where it's not nessasary. In the recent case it wouldn't have hurt, or impeded the project he was working on to follow the rules and lodge a speedy deletion request. Although I doubt that I'll see him running around banning users for no reason I still want the assurance that everything is going to be done the way it should. If you are going to ignore the rules in cases where it doesn't make a great difference whether or not you do follow them, then why bother having the rules in the first place? - Jedaz [00:23, 1 February 2008 (BST)]
24. Against-This is a useless publicity stunt. Neither the rules nor the sysops need a 'referendum'. Why bother with it except to prove something to your 'enemies' on a 'wiki clique'? I hardly count two sysops a 'wiki clique'. Besides, the sysops vote on Misconduct, not the average citizen. As long as the 'Ruling Clique', whatever they are, would still be allowed to police Hagnat and ensure that he DOESN'T vioalte the spirit and the letter of the ruling, this would have been a Vouch, because I like you, especially thanks to you killing off the "copyright kaffule". HOWEVER, you stated that you would break the law anyway when it suits you. That, and with this useless publicity stunt, um, I cannot support in good consicence. Sorry.--ShadowScope 01:14, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

    It's interesting, but having had time to think about this, I don't think it can be dismissed as merely a publicity stunt with no purpose. Hagnat placed this here before the verdict on his current Misconduct case. He'd been found guilty in the previous one, and in the most recent one, the reporter was calling for him to be demoted. If he had been, then this vote would have been a strong incentive for him to be almost immediately reinstated (given that it's got 74% vouches). I'm not trying to persuade you to change your vote (I respect your right to your opinion), just pondering whether or not it can truly be described as useless (except perhaps with hindsight), given the circumstances that prompted it. --Funt Solo ^QT 11:08, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

    That's assuming there was ever any chance of Hagnat getting demoted in the first place. He's popular, one of the most popular SysOps we have, or, dare I say, have ever had. Hagnat had 0 chance of losing his position, it's not like Cyberbob who many users simply didn't like. --Karek^maps?! 16:27, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

    I am not that popular, i only am here for a long long time already. This promotion bid was not a publicity stunt, it was a way for me to check if the whole community indeed would have supported my actions even when explained why i make then, and that i will keep acting that way. There is always a chance of a sysop being demoted, even popular ones. Jedaz was popular, and got demoted because those who held the power-stick didnt liked him. Matthew asked for his own demotion because some users (me included) annoyed him until he gave up, and he was popular too. --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{[cloned] [mod]} 16:59, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

25. Vouch - I clashed with Hagnat a long time ago, but the longer I have been on here, the more I have come to see that often he has the wiki's best interests at heart. I agree with his overall statements above, and I think he should continue to use his good judgement and cool temperament to continue to keep improving the wiki. If we don't have him around, I would think that the wiki would be a worse place. But don't mind me, I'm apparently the "vocal minority". --Akule ^{School's in session.} 01:25, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
26. Vouch - Long-serving member of the community. Interesting to see who is voting against. --_Ducis ^Dux_Sloth^Talk 07:33, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
27. Vouch - from what I have seen of his input he has the best interests of the wiki at heart. It would be a worse place without his work. Moyes^{T RPM} 10:45, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
28. Vouch - A user who's done a lot for the wiki. --Toejam 13:34, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
29. Against - You seem like a good guy and you usually have the best interest of the wiki in mind, but you persistently ignore proper procedure for absolutely no good reason. I could understand bending the rules if they actually prevented you from improving the wiki, but you usually do it just because going by the book would have caused a slight delay. While your actions usually are for the benefit of the wiki, your disregard of the rules is only for the benefit of yourself. --Midianian|T|T:S|C:RCS| 15:31, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
30. Unnecessary - You say you will do what you want, yet you stage this little drama. Hagnat, I generally think your stuff is pretty well reasoned, but this is dangerously close to the kind of activity you say you've burned witches for. If you're going to do what you want anyway, then how about you just do it and let the chips fall where they may? You want to be a rebel, but you want to be some kind of 'sanctioned' rebel? This is similar to my own folly on the parody page policy - I was trying to get rogue behavior legalized, without realizing that once you legalize it, it ceases to be rogue behavior. Just do - or don't do - what you plan to do and face whatever consequences may come. You'll know what they are, because you as well as anyone know the rules as written. Make sense?--Squid Boy 16:40, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
31. Against - My thoughts are the same as Midianian. --Z. slay3r •  Talk  17:05, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
32. Vouch The fact that he is proposing ideas that will limit sysop power, his included, is a sign that we can trust him. "Only those who do not want power are fit to have it", to paraphrase a saying. And the fact he's putting himself up for a public critique is bold - notice that right now he's has public approval by about 5 to 1. If only more sysops would be brave enough to submit themselves to this. This wiki is over-reliant on rules and under-reliant on not being an asshole. If you violate a rule and the result doesn't piss anyone off for any reason other than the fact a rule wasn't followed to the letter you're missing the whole point.--Jon Pyre 22:35, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

    Out of curiosity what would it be that he is proposing that limit's sysop powers?--Karek^maps?! 05:49, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

    I was referring to this. Not that I really think that permabans are a problem now, but it's nice to have it codified for the future. The reason for my vouch though is that Hagnat just seems like a decent guy. --Jon Pyre 18:31, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

33. Against because i was so hoping that grim was being demodded when i saw the announcement. – Nubis 12:46, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
34. Vouch Because he's still better than Goldstein. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mordred (talk • contribs) 18:05, 3 February 2008.

    I replaced this and added the unsigned template, as this is not a vote. --Funt Solo ^QT 20:27, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

35. Vouch He's contributed a lot to this wiki, and so maybe he has some other good ideas that we can leech from him.--Lachryma^☭ 07:01, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
36. vouch It is ridiculous that its even come down to this. Leave him to get on with the job of keeping things tidy and lets get back to persecuting Grim ;) --Honestmistake 11:55, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
37. Vouch - Is almost always helpful, I like him....--/~Rakuen~\^Talk I Still Love Grim 16:01, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
38. Against --Memoman 23:19, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
39. Vouch - Haven't seen Hagnat do anything in bad faith. Whats the whole against argument here anyway? "He doesn't follow proper procedure"? Thats really stupid. --Kikashie ^ELT 17:59, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
40. Vouch - because Finis voted "Against". --_LH779 11:58, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
41. Vouch - Been lurking. Like what I've seen.--Thari ^{TжFedCom is BFI!} 06:06, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Kept - I would advise you to take head of some of the against votes, however -- boxy ^{talk • i} 10:21 16 February 2008 (BST)

---