UDWiki:Administration/Arbitration/Axe27 vs Bagel7

From The Urban Dead Wiki

Jump to: navigation, search
Padlock.png Administration Services — Protection.
This page has been protected against editing. See the archive of recent actions or the Protections log.

Kamden (aka Axe27) vs. Bagel7

I reverted a series of edits on the Santlerville Discussion pages because I believed there was attempting to start a flame war. He continued to revert my edits. I asked him to cease and desist, and he refused. So here we are. --User:Axe27/Sig 20:47, 12 May 2007 (BST)

Could you please post the relevant edits? --ZombieSlay3rSig.pngT 01:42, 13 May 2007 (BST)
This is not A/VB Zombie Slayer: first both parts have to agree over an Arbitrator and then explain their case as the Arbitrator demands. Of course if Kamden wants he can present the evidence now, but as an opening statement for the case what he said should suffice. --Matthew Fahrenheit YRCT+1 07:21, 13 May 2007 (BST)
It might impact the impartiality of an arbitrator depending on what those edits are. For instance, if they were about Ghetto Cow, me and Zombie Slay3r probably shouldn't take the case, or whatever. So the edits do kinda matter. Also, if they are about dumb stuff, then we could just dismiss the case. "Stop arguing about that semicolon, dammit!" and the such. Kamden's opening statement is too vague, in essence.--Lachryma 07:24, 13 May 2007 (BST)
Let me explain myself in a Xoid-like-bullet-using-style, but please don't take it harshly:
  • Kamden has given a complete explanation on what page is affected by the conflict, wich users are included on it and under what circumstances he decided to start the case (no other option left). Anyone can figure out their level of involvement with the case with that alone, and how impartial one would be.
  • I sensed a tone of necessity on Zombie Slayer's request, to wich I answered clarifying what the next step should be, the lack of necessity of further explanation in Kamden's side and the confussion that a figure of authority can bring to a normal user when he demands said explanation as it's not mandatory to comply, and in the same step I covered the possibility of confussion on Slayer's side if he thought that his status as a Sysop enabled him to make rulings or something else without being appointed as Arbitrator. In any case, I consider that last possibility very slim.
  • The very idea that user's valid concerns can be deemed "dismissable" or even "dumb" goes against the spirit of the wiki and good faith as well. The only exception to this golden rule would be a case of abuse of administrational processes, and I can't sense that Kamden has in any way abused the system because he hasn't made repeated vexatious reports in any administrational page. As such, his concerns should be treated as valid and given the attention they deserve.
Given these explanations, let me state that of course there's no harm in following Zombie Slayer's directions and explain the case a bit more, but in no way such a thing is mandatory. --Matthew Fahrenheit YRCT+1 09:17, 13 May 2007 (BST)
Xoid invented bullet-using-style too?! Wow! Anyway, I don't agree with your second point at all. It seems paranoid. Your first point is decently valid, though I imagine ZS just didn't want to dredge through the history and find out what was going on. Furthermore, both of those users may or may not have edited that page a decent amount. While most edit wars involve summary sentences on each revert, some don't, which would confuse the issue.
And then there's your last bullet. No, I don't think anyone is dumb. How could I judge that? Neither do I think anyone's concerns are dumb. However, not everyone views this page the same way. I view it as a serious place to resolve serious problems. Maybe Kamden views it as that. Maybe not. Either way, I'd like to see what caused this trouble and judge for myself if I should try to help out, or just stare at them in pity. The links would help with that all-important decision.
But at the end of the day, it doesn't matter. Kamden can do what he wishes, for it's his case, no? And this drama is dumb. Link, no link, pushy sysops, innocent inquisitors, whatever. It's all good. And it doesn't matter to either of us, probably.--Lachryma 09:41, 13 May 2007 (BST)
Any further discussion between you both should go onto the talk page. Please keep the conversation relevant to the case. - JedazΣT MC ΞD CT SR: 08:53, 13 May 2007 (GMT)
On second thought, this is really, really dumb. I'm gonna sit here and try to slap you instead of getting the links myself! With that realization, it would appear the links are as follows: Initial Comment, Removal, Comment Put Back, Other Person Responding To Comment With Humor, Removal Of Both Comments, Putting Both Comments Back, Replying, Removal Of 3 Comments, Putting Back 3 Comments, 4th Comment Added By Another Party, Current Revision. And that's all, folks!--Lachryma 09:54, 13 May 2007 (BST)EDIT CONFLICT: Gotcha, Jedaz.--Lachryma 09:54, 13 May 2007 (BST)
Well, it looks like you two (Lach and Matt) sorted it out yourselves, but I thought it would be best if links to the mentioned edits were listed on this page in order for prospective arbitrators to view them easily, instead of each of them having to drudge through the page's history to see every edit. --ZombieSlay3rSig.pngT 21:08, 13 May 2007 (BST)
Sorry for the absence, it was my younger cousin's prom night.Anyhow, Lachrmya has provided the links in question. Intially, I removed Bagel7's comment simply for the fact that it was obviously an insult and had no constructive value. He reverted my edits, I reverted his again, he reverted mine and I stopped, asked him to stop, he (Sorry, this is my opening statement) refused, and I took him here. I know you can't exactly report a man for attempting to start drama, but I think it's best if the situation is defused before it goes off. Here is a list of arbitrators I would agree to:
  1. Atticus Rex
  2. Axe Hack
  3. Cyberbob240
  4. Labine50
  5. Dux Ducis
  6. Darth Sensitive

--User:Axe27/Sig 17:21, 13 May 2007 (BST)

I'll do it, if Bagel7 doesn't have a problem with that.--Labine50 MHG|MEMS|DHPD 21:08, 13 May 2007 (BST)
I accept Labine50 as Arbitrator, if the other party agrees? --User:Axe27/Sig 16:08, 14 May 2007 (BST)

My first and most likely only reply to this silly matter. The so-called "inflammatory" edit was made in the context of these two comments 1, 2 and it was neither meant as an insult nor an attempt to start a conflict, except only for those can't tell a joke from an insult. Axe27 conveniently fails to mention that he enagaged in removing not only my comment but some other user's as well, at which point he simply became rude. As this is obviously not vandalism, removing other people's comments is merely lack of civility. The only person who attempts to start a drama when not needed is Axe, by overexaggerating this sillines. It saddens me how this arbitration section is being used as some people's boredom remedy. If that's Axe's way of having fun, fine, but don't expect me to take part in this. Call me back when you start dealing with serious issues.--Bagel7 09:17, 15 May 2007 (BST)

Not only is it extremely immature to attack the arguer, not the arguement itself, it is absoluetly irrevalent to the discussion at hand. How can the term used not be insult?--User:Axe27/Sig 03:07, 16 May 2007 (BST)
Not only is it exceedingly immature to argue on something like this but also purely idiotic. Now, had I used that term on someone, which I didn't, would've probably been an insult. --Bagel7 06:12, 16 May 2007 (BST)
So, the software used must be lying, and there is no proof at all of you using the term. I do not see how you could use that term in anyother way but to question someone's sexual orientation. --User:Axe27/Sig 15:16, 16 May 2007 (BST)
OK, break it up! We're here to try to solve the problem., not create more drama.--Labine50 MHG|MEMS|DHPD 17:34, 16 May 2007 (BST)
Axe, stop fooling around. I did not call anyone a gay. It was a joke regarding the previous two comments. And, btw, I contest the necessity of arbitration.--Bagel7 09:54, 17 May 2007 (BST)

Dictionary definition of the word gay: light hearted, sportive, mirthful, showy. Seems to fit the banter it was aimed at! I see absolutely no merit in this whatsoever, especially given the dodgy exchange it was aimed at. --Honestmistake 10:21, 17 May 2007 (BST)

  • Bagel, just pick an arbiter... they're not fools, if there's really nothing in this, they'll throw it out pretty quickly (it could all be over by now if you'd just done that first up) -- boxy T L ZS Nuts2U DA 10:47, 17 May 2007 (BST)

I'll accept this case...that is if no one else has been accepted. --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ #nerftemplatedsigs 14:11, 17 May 2007 (BST)

  • Axe27/Kamden has accepted Labine; he's waiting for Bagel7's response. Bagel7, just agree or disagree to Labine50 and get it over with, we're all reasonable people here. --V2Blast TP!CSR 22:47, 17 May 2007 (BST)
Replying to Honestmistake's comment. An Encarta definition of the word gay. You'd be hardpressed to discredit the information. --User:Axe27/Sig 04:43, 19 May 2007 (BST)
pick any dictionary you like the definition is the same + in modern parlence the use of the word "gay" to define sexuality. The comments he was refering to were about homesexual necro-sex, just get over it!--Honestmistake 22:18, 20 May 2007 (BST)
  • This Arbitration case began on the 12th, and it is now the 19th. I think a bureaucrat (aka Boxy) should just choose and arbitrator for the both of them and lets get it over with. --Ducis DuxSlothTalk 06:29, 19 May 2007 (BST)
    Well, I'm not sure if it's got much to do with bureaucrats (maybe someone who's more familar with the arby precedents knows what circumstances arbitration can be forced through). But anyway, if Bagel hasn't decided on an arbiter by tomorrow, I may just have to pick on, to finish this off -- boxy T L ZS Nuts2U DA 15:43, 19 May 2007 (BST)
    Well, I asked for Labine, and yet Bagel hasn't even responded to the comment. --User:Axe27/Sig 18:45, 19 May 2007 (BST)
    The arbitration rules always been more or less established by general opinion. a bureaucrat doesn't have any special powers here but if it gets the ball rolling, why not? Or we just could just skip the waiting until tomorrow and say that labine has been excepted. As Bagel seemed to be agnostic on that issue. Why drag this on, even for a day?--Vista +1 17:17, 20 May 2007 (BST)
    I'd have no issue with that, seeing as I asked for Labine, and he offered to take the case. --User:Axe27/Sig 17:44, 20 May 2007 (BST)
    I think that Bagel has granted this as much attention as he is going to (or that it deserves). I saw the edits; this truly is a pointless, stupid case. I'd ignore all of this if I were him, too. So if everyone is bound and determined to proceed with this attempt at punitive legalism, you're likely doing it without your defendant. --Jorm 21:20, 20 May 2007 (BST)

OK, if it's down to general consensus, then I don't think that Kamden has demonstrated that this is a serious enough issue to push through a ruling. Everyone who was actually involved in the conversation seems to have got on with life without being offended by the comments -- boxy T L ZS Nuts2U DA 02:53, 21 May 2007 (BST)

Concur. This is a waste of time; move on.--Jorm 06:20, 21 May 2007 (BST)
And away it goes.--Vista +1 09:41, 21 May 2007 (BST)
Personal tools