UDWiki:Administration/Misconduct/Archive/Hagnat/2009

January 31st

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 ^{talk • teh 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.---– 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 ^{talk • teh 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 ^{talk • teh 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 (talk • contribs) 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. Conndraka^{mod 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.... -- . . <== 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> ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 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.-- #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". -- . . <== 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. --Karek^maps?! 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. --Karek^maps?! 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 ^{talk • teh 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. --Karek^maps?! 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. ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 07:02, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

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. ---– 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. ---– 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 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. --– 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)

"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)

Hagnat and Cheese

I'm grouping both of these together as they are implicated in the same misconduct, and given Hagnat's history of stealth ruling it'd be better if doesn't have the opportunity to influence his own case by ruling on Cheese's.

These sysops cooperated to justify the removal of a deserved permanent ban of proven liar and persistent vandal.

User:Kerkel had four contributions before recieving his perma-ban. Three to group pages even when his edits had been reverted and one to a user page. For these edits, two vandalism cases were filed, he first receieved a warning, and then under the terms set out in the Administration Guidelines he was issued with a permanent ban under the following clause: "In all but the fourth of the above instances, and the fifth should the system operator believe that the case doesn't merit the permaban laid out by standing policy, he/she should impose an infinite ban without a warning."

What we have here is a user with four edits, all vandalism, and therefore receiving their justly deserved permanent ban (technically according to policy it's an infinite ban, the technical perma comes next).

This user then returned with a new account, User:Rayols. This account made three edits, all contributing to a single response on Cheese's talk page. According to the Vandal Escalations Reduction policy, "Attempting to circumvent a ban will result in an escalation without any warning, for each attempted circumvention. If this takes the user beyond 12 months, then they are automatically permabanned." By circumventing his first infinite ban to edit this wiki, the user's contributions are automatically vandalism. As the next escalation would place him above a 12 month ban (he was already above 12 months with an infinite ban) he was permabanned.

Just for Hagnat's benefit, we know he has trouble with words:

Permanent - Adjective

permanent (comparative more permanent, superlative most permanent)

Positive permanent

Comparative more permanent

Superlative most permanent

1. Without end, eternal.

Nothing in this world is truly permanent.

1. Lasting for an indefinitely long time.

The countries are now locked in a permanent state of conflict.

A permaban, is quite obviously, a ban that is without end.

Now, skip forward to yesterday, and Cheese's character is shot at in the game as shown Image:Cheesescreen.jpg, because of this Hagnat and Cheese decide to unban this user. The user that has seven contributions over two accounts and has had a warning, an infinite ban and permaban in less than two hours, and these two sysops decide to accept this user's word over and override the policy voted and put in place to protect this wiki and the resources on it from vandalism.

There is no way in policy to de-escalate a permaban.

There is no justifiable reason to unban a user with 100% vandalism contributions, even with the sysop override clause.

We must also consider if this user would have been unbanned if it was Hagnat or Cheese's group pages or user pages this individual had vandalised. I think not.

Hagnat and Cheese have actively abused their position and opened up this wiki to continued vandalism because in Hagnat's words "i have to give credit to this guy". This also sets the dangerous precedent that actions towards sysops' characters in the game can cause responses on the wiki that override basic policy.

This user should have his permaban reinstated, the other accounts he edits with also permabanned and Cheese and Hagnat should be subject to demotion for their flagrant disregard and dereliction to their duty of using their sysop abilities to protect this wiki from vandals. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 10:24, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Help:Vandalism From UDWiki:Vandalism#Penalties_for_Vandalism

I don't know why more would need to be said but, this could easily be classed as overruling another sysop and misconduct would only come in with the lack of showing their decision on A/VB. The point remains though, the wiki doesn't exist to ban users and nothing is gained from losing members of the community because they weren't given the benefit of the doubt. No harm, no foul, drop it.--Judge Karke, self-proclaimed Decider of Everything and Ruler of All 11:54, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm going to assume you haven't read any of iscariot's edits anywhere if you assume good faith on anything he does here. Not misconduct in each case. The ban system doesn't exist to punish users. But iscariot isn't here to contribute. He's just trolling constantly. The edit in question was in bad faith. And he was warned accordingly.--Thari ^{TжFedCom is BFI!} 12:12, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Then please rule to that effect to clarify it. That's really all I need on my part, it won't change my ruling below but it does validate the escalation more.--Judge Karke, self-proclaimed Decider of Everything and Ruler of All 12:18, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

How can you possibly say (aside from the fact that it's written there) that this system is one against punishment when it is clearly stated (as Iscariot pointed out) that less than 3 edits, all vandalism is a permaban. That system allows no compromise, no benefit of the doubt, no nothing. It is punishment and nothing else. While i agree that guy should be given another chance, i don't agree that what hag and cheese did was right. If you want the policy changed either a) make sysops mods again, which is exactly what they have become in the last 6 months or (even better) b) write a fucking policy! --xoxo 12:52, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Nobody gives a shit what you think, and that comment just proved them right. The three-edit-ban rule is operating under the reasonable assumption that if someone uses their first three edits purely for vandalism they're less than likely to be after making good-faith contributions. --Cyberbob 12:56, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Because I know what that rule was put in place to prevent. This isn't it.--Judge Karke, self-proclaimed Decider of Everything and Ruler of All 13:35, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Also, the three edit rule isn't mandatory; It's completely up to the sysops.--Judge Karke, self-proclaimed Decider of Everything and Ruler of All 13:37, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

It might not be mandatory but once enforced that is it, what i said still stands, if you don't like it, change it, don't just break it. This is obviously just going to encourage ops to throw bans around and think about the consequences later, a trend that is already pretty obvious...--xoxo 00:22, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

It's given no more weight than a standard VB escalation in it's permanence. Other sysops can, and have, come along and overruled them in the past.--Judge Karke, self-proclaimed Decider of Everything and Ruler of All 01:16, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Theres a nice piece of guideline somewhere that says if you give an undeserved ban you can receive the same length ban in return, can that happen please? --xoxo 01:21, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

durp hurp hurp that only applies in cases of rulings in bad faith. You really don't know shit about anything. --Cyberbob 01:38, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Link plz.--xoxo 02:49, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I need a link to prove to you that a rule doesn't apply to actions made in good faith? Lolwut? --Cyberbob 03:45, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Seems reasonable to me...--xoxo 13:59, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Oh yeah, I remember that. We didn't want to have to wait for him and others like him to rack up the required number of edits for a regular perma or something. --Cyberbob 13:41, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Not misconduct - if a sysop feels that they can give a user the benifit of the doubt, and no others give a reasonable objection to it, then they are free to warn the user, and ban later, if their leniency proves to be misguided. If this account touches your page again, they will not get the benefit of the doubt again... -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 13:06 10 January 2009 (BST)

I'd like you to confirm that you agree woth a sysop removing an issued ban and substituting a lower term based on actions towards his character in the game. To be clear, this user was permabanned, this isn't a case of I think they deserve it, they were permabanned and then later this has been removed by sysops without any policy being in effect to reduce that escalation. By agreeing with this you'd be happy with other sysops removing the ban on Grim and Izumi, provided they had a majority. You also make the recent work on trying to hash out a policy to revise permabans in certain cases worthless if you're going to say sysops can undo any permaban awarded according to their individual whim. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 02:28, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

This user wasn't unbanned because they intimidated a sysop in game. Cheese laughed about getting attacked. The case was reconsidered in light of them giving an undertaking to not re-offend. I personally don't hold out much hope of them becoming productive wiki contributors, but their vandalism has been quite limited, and now that they know for certain that another similar offense will see them out with no hope for a return, they probably will not re-offend with obvious vandalism... and even if they do, they will be dealt with swiftly. Vandal banning isn't about punishment, but rather damage control. If any of the sysops had thought that this vandal was likely to be a constant re-offender, then they had ample opportunity to speak up and stop the re-evaluation of the permban, but none did, opening the way for the two sysops involved to show leniency. Permbans should only be used for the totally incorrigible, or those suspected of dedicated sock puppet vandalism (like 3pwv), that is the spirit of our current vandalism policies -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 09:24 11 January 2009 (BST)

Not misconduct Conndraka^{mod TAZM CFT} 13:36, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I'[

Not misconduct --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 14:10, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

10th January

For this edit. Hagnat has abuse his sysop powers to make an edit on a protected page.

This change effects every user on this wiki, by changing the sidebar to our left. I can find no record of Hagnat attempting to consult with the community before making this sweeping change that effects everyone, nor is there any good reason. We do not have links to A/VB or A/MR on the sidebar as they are covered by the Administration entry, the cities are already covered by the prominent links on the main page.

Hagnat has abused his position as a sysop to further his own goals and this project, founded by him. This a a selfish edit made with no consideration or consultation with the rest of the community.

I'm wanting the appropriate warning corncerning such changes and the appropriate reversion of the sidebar. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 10:24, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

This portion right here is not gonna happen without Kevan stepping in. This is how these things have always been changed, however it would be an issue for A/VB if you wish to argue about the nature of the edits. It certainly doesn't help your case that MediaWiki pages aren't protected, editing is limited to Sysop by the wiki software itself.--Judge Karke, self-proclaimed Decider of Everything and Ruler of All 11:31, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

In my defense, the current sidebar (not couting my recent edits) was also also my doing, and i did it without consulting the community. Kevan's edit only fixed a link i had wrong. Therefore, if it wasnt misconduct or vandalism before, it shouldnt be now as well. --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{talk mod} 16:26, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Ooo! Oooo! And check the timestamps of the edit made to the sidebar and the creation of the project. You'll notice that the project was created AFTER the edit made to the sidebar, when i realized that the city pages needed to be improved now that i just had put them in the sidebar. --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{talk mod} 16:44, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

How do we know you weren't setting it in advance for your selfish projekt? :) -- dǝǝɥs oʇ ɯɐds: sʎɐʍ1ɐ! 16:56, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

ohshitbusted... now, seriously... you dont expect the reactionary guy (as i get called from time to time) to plan ahead, do you ? --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{talk mod} 17:05, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Not misconduct - he didn't remove any information, only enhanced the page as the game evolves -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 13:12 10 January 2009 (BST)

Not misconduct Frivolous... Conndraka^{mod TAZM CFT} 13:32, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Not Misconduct - Lolwut? -- Cheese 16:57, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I have to say, I don't like it now. It just looks off because of the change.-- dǝǝɥs oʇ ɯɐds: sʎɐʍ1ɐ! 15:06, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I think its mostly because it's new. I think it's a bit more useful now with links to the stats page and the like. There's probably a few tweaks that could be made and maybe we could ask folk what they want on it. -- Cheese 16:57, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

It's the cities part that does it for me. I just don't like the links, that and the fact that sections are still un-capitalized.-- dǝǝɥs oʇ ɯɐds: sʎɐʍ1ɐ! 17:02, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

That I can fix. Two seconds. -- Cheese 17:08, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Or not. =/ That's a bit weird. They're capitals on the page but it won't translate that to the sidebar. -- Cheese 17:10, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I noticed. Odd. But thanks anyway. The rest of this stuff isn't too much of a concern to me. That just always bugged me. :D -- dǝǝɥs oʇ ɯɐds: sʎɐʍ1ɐ! 17:11, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

It must be hard-coded into the software. Linkthewindow  Talk  02:10, 11 January 2009 (UTC)