UDWiki:Administration/Sysop Archives/Zombie slay3r/2007-09-19 Misconduct

Administration » Sysop Archives » Zombie slay3r » 2007-09-19 Misconduct

22:32, 19 September 2007 (BST)

TO ANYBODY WHO IS NOT A SYSOP OR A DIRECT PARTICIPANT, USE THE TALK PAGE. ANY NON-RELEVANT COMMENT WILL BE MOVED TO THERE-- Evil  Vista  22:40, 19 September 2007 (BST)

Falsely Speedy-deleted content McZeds_(old) under A/SD 1, when content was required for disambig [1], which is supported under precedent here. I also move that a ruling by The General will be considered misconduct, as he is involved with this situation. --Karlsbad 22:32, 19 September 2007 (BST)

I do not believe it to be misconduct. ZombieSlayer followed the solution of the arbitration case and the speedy deletion rules and as such it can't be misconduct. Disambig pages are not automatic, as with witnessed with the malton mob, Militant Order of Barhar arbitration case over the MOB redirect. As far as I read Jedaz's arbitration decision this was the supposed solution to this specific editing problem. It's also not an uncommon solution, it's been used before.

The result of an Arbitration case regarding edits does count for every user of wiki, It's the primary reason why we have such a page. To solve edit conflicts like these. We tend to forget that as it is mostly used for users to settle their fights. But in this case ZombieSlayer right as this probably was the solution the arbitrator settled on. We could ask Jedaz to be certain though. You'll have to take it up with Jedaz on the arbitration decision if you want to create a disambig page anyway. Until then the page should probably stay as it now. Anybody else? -- Evil  Vista  23:09, 19 September 2007 (BST)

I thought I'ld drop in and clear this up for everyone who is watching. I belive my comment here may have confused Karlsbad. The specific ruling was that Stuartbman could create a new McZeds page and add a link from the original. While I never said that someone else couldn't make it a disambig page, it's pointless to have the Old McZeds page when it isn't being used. As for having McZeds as a disabmig page, the best people to talk to are Atari Techno and Zod Rhombus as they are the current owners of McZeds. However I think that the current solution is best. - If Jedaz = 00:08, 20 September 2007 (BST) then pi = 2 + 1

Not misconduct - You may debate the issue of whether the original McZeds page should become nothing more than a disambig page elsewhere, but it seems clear to me that the arbitration ruling called for a simple notice at the top of the original page pointing to the "new McZeds" page. To quote Jedaz, "add a disambiguation link to the McZeds page", this does not mean "turn the McZeds page into a disambiguation page". Therefore the page that was deleted was duplicating the original to no purpose, thereby qualifying for Crit 1 speedydeletion -- boxy • talk • 09:54 20 September 2007 (BST)

Well, boxy summed up my thoughts exactly. I read The General's comment on A/SD and then examined the ruling on the arby's case. In accordance with the last two sentences of the ruling, I added a disambiguation link to the original page and decided against altering McZeds into a disambig page after reading this statement written by Jedaz, "Any editing to the current McZeds page other then adding a disambiguation link and removing/adding your stores from the "Restaurant Locator" will be met as vandalism." The quote states that the only allowed alterations to McZeds are a disambig link (at the top of the page), and changing stores on the restaurant locator.

I can see how the ruling may be interpreted differently, so no hard feelings. --^T 14:21, 20 September 2007 (BST)