User talk:LibrarianBrent

Leave a message at the sound of the "click"... --LibrarianBrent 01:47, 13 May 2006 (BST)

I have left you a message regarding your action against Zaruthustra on the Arbitration page, in the appropriate section. --Grim s-^Mod 02:08, 13 May 2006 (BST)

Policy Discussion Rework

take a look at this page. This is how the policy discussion page should look like. Comments ? --hagnat ^mod 02:28, 27 May 2006 (BST)

Private Discussion

Go to http://modofmod.proboards99.com/index.cgi for Mod Discussions Conndraka^{mod T W!} 19:17, 4 June 2006 (BST)

Eh?

I noticed you placed tags on Amazing's page indicating he'd been banned. Not that I'm complaining (just the opposite), but when'd that happen? --Jimbo Bob ^ASS•U! 02:26, 9 June 2006 (BST)

Today. --LibrarianBrent 02:47, 9 June 2006 (BST)

No, I got that much - the actual (albeit unclear) meaning of what I asked was why/how that happened. I watch the Vandal Banning page, and to date I haven't seen anything about this there. What, specifically, was this resulting from? --Jimbo Bob ^ASS•U! 02:51, 9 June 2006 (BST)

Huh

Didn't see that coming. The legality is certainly questionable, but seeing as how he'd probably call me on breaking arbitration rulings if I did try to get involved and reverse it I'll just let it play out. --Zaruthustra-Mod 02:43, 9 June 2006 (BST)

Kevan himself said that Amazing was violating those decisions. --LibrarianBrent 02:47, 9 June 2006 (BST)

The year ban just seems like a bit of a non-sequitar as opposed to the traditional escalating one (48h or a week in this case?). Not that I'm complaining you know. I'm just sure you'll never hear the end of it. --Zaruthustra-Mod 02:49, 9 June 2006 (BST)

He was improperly escalated previously. As you can see from vandaldata, Amazing was warned, then banned for 24 hours. However, the first warning should have been 48 hours, the second warning a week, and the ban a month, since he had already been banned early in wiki history. When he was later banned for a day, that should have been a perma. A year is, in this case, a lenient sentence. --LibrarianBrent 03:21, 9 June 2006 (BST)

"Bans shall be escalating in nature, the first being for 24 hours, the second being for 48 hours, the third being a week, the fourth being a month, and the fifth being indefinite. A Moderator may also choose to ban the IP of a user on this scale, should the user attempt to circumnvent the ban." - my unwarranted ban on Amazing does not count against the total, regardless of it's inclusion for historical accuracy, and even if it were, the ban would be one month, not 1 year. Actual time he should be serving: 1 week and a day (making up the 24hrs lost from Hagnat's 24hr only ban on him) –Xoid ^S•T•FU! 07:18, 9 June 2006 (BST)

Actually, according to Vandal Data, Amazing was warned twice in early wiki history (as Librarian Brent noted), then banned for 24h, also in early wiki history, then was improperly warned twice more later on instead of being banned. Then he was banned for 24h after the apparently inexplicable reset. Discounting your invalid ban, and properly counting the improper warnings and ban later on, Librarian Brent's ban would be Amazing's fifth, properly resulting in a permaban. As Librarian Brent noted, his 1 year ban is actually quite lenient. --Jimbo Bob ^ASS•U! 07:27, 9 June 2006 (BST)

Bluh. That didn't twinge. Alright, his one year ban is re-instated. –Xoid ^S•T•FU! 07:34, 9 June 2006 (BST)

Wow

I am impressed. That took some guts. Its like those small dogs that would hunt wild boar and stuff. That crazy kind of stones... You've got them. Awesome Brent. Ten points for gumption. -Banana Bear 03:09, 9 June 2006 (BST)

Wiki disscussion forum

I have just created a wiki discussion forum to discuss the wiki in standard message board format. All current wiki moderators will be made moderators on the forum.--The General ^{T Sys U! P! F!} 23:00, 9 June 2006 (BST)

Brent? Brent?Breeeeeeeeeent!

Help me Librarian Brent, you served as moderator in the wikigate, your my only hope. We could really use you to arbitrate again. Nevermind, I guess some other cats gon' do it. Have fun in what distant land your in, sweet prince. -That's Why I did your Wife 07:10, 4 August 2006 (BST)

Strike Through

1. Delete - Call it what you want, the essence of the page remains the same. It is a page on prejudice and harrassment made and maintained by those who would not be innocent enough, in themselves, to cast the first stone. Sesheta 17:54, 26 August 2006 (BST)

   Um, hmm only contributions from you appear to be on this vote, is someone guilty of voting fraud? The Devil 18:15, 26 August 2006 (BST)

   • Vote struck out for suspected voting fraud. Contest on talk page. --LibrarianBrent 18:45, 26 August 2006 (BST)

Re: The Above (I apologise if this isn't the 'talk' page you referred to)

Normally I only read/lurk as I have never had the confidence to actually 'edit' or add anything in the past due to lack of knowledge of the editing tools. Finally decided to take the plunge, for the first time, and now wish I hadn't. I resent the unfounded accusation of Vote Fraud, and can only take this as a tactical way of removing a vote not in keeping with the views of the person (yourself) who decided to do it. Needless to say I will not be adding anything in the future as apparently unless you are part of the 'clique' then the independent views of Wiki Readers/Users are of little or no importance and will be arbitrarily removed. Sesheta 21:34, 27 August 2006 (BST)

hey

i remember you :) --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{[cloned] [mod]} 23:53, 30 June 2007 (BST)

So are you kinda still around on the wiki then? --_Ducis ^Dux_Sloth^Talk 16:14, 14 July 2007 (BST)

Inactive?

	Inactive?
	It appears that you have not made a contribution to the wiki in the last four months, and have been put up for demotion as an inactive sysop. Please let us know if you're around, and really still interested in maintaining the wiki. Thanks -- boxy talk • i 04:36 15 February 2008 (BST)