UDWiki talk:Administration/Misconduct/Archive/Hagnat/2008

Hagnat 3.0

"Given this is rather minor, id only ask for a slap on the wrist" Your words at the top of the case Grim.... I agree with you that he has broken the rules but a warning is not a slap on the wrist. Perhaps one of your "soft warnings" that further infraction will be more serious misconduct? --Honestmistake 00:32, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately there is no policy on soft warnings, now is there. --Akule ^{School's in session.} 00:38, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

You conveniently left out the "but", Honestmistake. Your selective quoting displeases me. --The Grimch ^{U! E! WAT!} 00:49, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

"It sucks to have to do this". Liar. --Funt Solo ^QT 16:40, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Teh Hagnat, Case 1254839539215123

Well, I actually have to agree with Grim, and on account of the precedent that's being set here. It is indeed a talk page, where one is allowed to express their opinion. Seeing as they are not harassing anyone, this definitely deserving a warning/ban for whatever length of time because it was a violation of sysop powers. Also, if we set the precedent that people can be banned for what they say on the talk page, then we are violating the spirit of the rules too. So, therefore, Hagnat should be punished for a use of his powers that was not in good faith. To not do so, is to ignore the rules completely(Not like that hasn't been done countless times before on this page.) --User:Axe27/Sig 16:52, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Major fucking facepalm material on the part of the vast majority of the sysop "team". If being uncivil was a legit offence, why am I not perma'd - or hell, ever received more than the second warning? I'll tell you why - because it isn't. Hangnut and Co. are spouting what is intended to be a very general guideline and ignoring the countless other abusive users who regularly shit up pages to a far greater degree than this poor schmuck ever did. And don't get me started on the reasons Hangnut gave for his ruling of vandalism (seriously, when did not signing factor into anything?). --Cyberbob ^{DORIS CGR U!} 11:37, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Hagnat seems to be the most frequent offender of using the nebulous nature of "good/bad faith" in the most stretched interpretation possible when it allows him to do what he feels like. I'm pleasantly surprised to see that several of the other wiki sysops have noticed this and take enough pride in their job as guideline enforcers and not community cops to point out oversteppings like this. --Riseabove 21:03, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

It's a shame that those sysops you refer to are largely ignored due to being in the tiny minority. --Cyberbob ^{DORIS CGR U!} 03:01, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

What was it that you said before? Oh, right. I think that this is appropriate here as well. It seems that when someone asks to play ball they shouldn't suddenly drop both of them when someone else steps up to play. Hagnat went up for review, and he wasn't even being criticized by Kevan for his behavior. Looks like a large bunch of sour grapes between former friends to me. --Akule ^{School's in session.} 13:46, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I for one, think what hagnat is doing is right, does he toe the line? absolutely, but only when he needs to, to make the wiki a better place.--'BP^Tmz 21:07, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

"Toeing the line" would be a procedural violation. Banning users for their statements on talk pages is disregarding the line completely. The precedent set here? "Users can be banned for what they say on talk pages." --User:Axe27/Sig 23:30, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

then where does it end? if people arnt responsable for what they post on talk pages whats stopping someone from posting racist remarks? --'BP^Tmz 00:50, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

You're a bit behind the times for that, there have been groups that used that as they're whole mechanic in the past, there was even recently a nazi themed group, the accepted rhetoric has always been that we can't do anything about it lest someone makes and Arbitration case or a successful Deletion vote, and even then it would need near unanimous approval and possibly even Kevan butting in for us to tell a players made group that he has allowed to exist in game(I know he has gotten complaints about certain groups names in the past) that they can't recruit through a wiki page(thus arbitration is obviously the preferred choice, removing the bulk of the racist content).--Karek^maps?! 02:27, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

I for one, believe that if I were sysops, none of this would have happened. How, you ask? Because I would rule the Imperium of Man with an iron fist!

Seriously though, I leave for a few days, and you guys start this up? Can't I take a small vacation for some RL stuff without me having to worry about babysitting everyone? Sheesh. :) -- dǝǝɥs oʇ ɯɐds: sʎɐʍ1ɐ! 14:48, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

No, now bring me my Binky.--Karek^maps?! 07:44, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Fine, coming master. *Digs in diaper bag* Ummm.....Would you like one of those ones that light up? The other one was eated by a kitten...-- dǝǝɥs oʇ ɯɐds: sʎɐʍ1ɐ! 19:04, 24 March 2008 (UTC)