UDWiki talk:Administration/Arbitration/Labine50 vs SooP

Administration Services — Protection. This page has been protected against editing. See the archive of recent actions or the Protections log.

Labine50 vs. SooP

Absurd Nonsense move from A/A. --Max Grivas ^{JG / M.F.T.} 03:25, 24 June 2007 (BST)

---

simple case that should be brought to VB instead of Arbys. SooP can kiss Labine's Ass and refrain from editing his user talk page. If he keeps doing it, it will be treated as vandalism. And so the mod in a bad mood said. --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{[cloned] [mod]} 04:08, 21 June 2007 (BST)

Aw, that Soup guy doesn't even get to talk about tripping on 'shrooms in his own defense?--Lachryma^☭ 04:16, 21 June 2007 (BST)

Actually not. This was a case for VB, so i dont need to hear from SooP. --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{[cloned] [mod]} 04:23, 21 June 2007 (BST)

Hagnat lays the smackdown on another zerger/vandal. --User:Axe27/Sig 04:26, 21 June 2007 (BST)

I'll arbitrate, if I must -- boxy ^{T L ZS Nuts2U DA} 12:37, 21 June 2007 (BST)

I agree that there is no need for arbitration - this is not a dispute as such. Closer to a persistant vandal. VB it is, I say. --_Ducis ^Dux_Sloth^Talk 13:37, 21 June 2007 (BST)

He edited the page in question three times... how is that persistent? This needs to be worked out here first if possible. If you guys reckon it should be dealt with in A/VB, deal with it already... it's there for the taking -- boxy ^{T L ZS Nuts2U DA} 14:22, 21 June 2007 (BST)

Make that 4. I'm getting mixed messages here. VB, Arby's, it's all good. As long as I don't have to put up with this crap again...--Labine50 ^MHG|^MEMS|^DHPD 15:26, 21 June 2007 (BST)

I think this is a case of vandalism and doesn't need arby's. According to the editing guidelines, Labine has full jurisdiction (well, almost) over his talk page and he specifically told SoOP to stop editing it. In addition, SoOP's comments don't appear to be in good faith, which is also considered vandalism. --^T 17:00, 21 June 2007 (BST)

User/Group Talk pages have never been held to the high standard of "Good Faith" that public pages have due to their conversational nature. One doesn't have to be polite to communicate. This is exactly what arbitration is set up for and the reason that arbitration decisions supersede policy. After an arbitrator who has been accepted by all parties present rules (traditionally in favor of the least prickish) any violation of the arbitrators decision will instantly be deemed vandalism. They need to be given a period to accept an arbitrator and go through the motions. --Max Grivas ^{JG / M.F.T.} 19:24, 21 June 2007 (BST)

that the same line of thought that created things like Wikigate and Jjamesgate. Labine was polite and asked soop to not edit his talk page. After that, unless soop edit it in a polite way showing good faith, there is only vandalism to be dealt with. Arbitration was created to solve edit conflicts, not to solve childish scenarios like this. --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{[cloned] [mod]} 19:44, 21 June 2007 (BST)

As you point out there are a great many precedents for this type of scenario. If trolling talk pages becomes vandalism through precedent, you sir will need to begin to lay off the sauce. (Thats a gybe not an insult. Arrr!) --Max Grivas ^{JG / M.F.T.} 20:00, 21 June 2007 (BST)

Not sure whether you'll ever need an arbitrator, since there have been decent arguments put forth toward both Arby's and VB. If it lands on Arby's, though, my hand's up. -- Atticus Rex ^{mfu pif} Δ 03:43, 22 June 2007 (BST)

ruling (sorta)

I'm fine with anybody. Is SooP even going to show up?--Labine50 ^MHG|^MEMS|^DHPD 23:00, 22 June 2007 (BST)

Well it looks like Hagnat made a decision to have a word with him. If he does it again I've no problem with dealing with it via A/VB... but you'd better leave him alone as well, eh. Don't go provoking trouble or you wont get a favorable hearing -- boxy ^{T L ZS Nuts2U DA} 02:00, 23 June 2007 (BST)

aw, right, of course... labine wont have any favorable treatment from this. Labine must stay away from SooP talk page too. --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{[cloned] [mod]} 02:44, 23 June 2007 (BST)

Is that an official ruling...? Can I go now?--Labine50 ^MHG|^MEMS|^DHPD 20:42, 23 June 2007 (BST)

If no one has anything against this decision, than its settled. --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{[cloned] [mod]} 21:46, 23 June 2007 (BST)

What is the decision? Is it written somewhere for record keeping? The process seems more Arbitrary than Arbitral. Do we need to re-write the guidelines to let everyone know that the process is as willy-nilly as the biggest bully requires? --Max Grivas ^{JG / M.F.T.} 01:36, 24 June 2007 (BST)

No feth. The other party never got a say, there wasn't any presenting of the case, and the only reason that Soop didn't get a summary warning was because of boxy. Some due process...--Lachryma^☭ 01:39, 24 June 2007 (BST)

If it was a vandal case, Soop should have received a warning; if not, then it was arbitration and Soop should have the opportunity to say something at least. Our dear friend Hagnat prefers Arbitration from the pre-Amazing era, and shows that even though people made a whole mess in order to be called "Sysops" instead of "Moderators", he still thinks he has forum's Mods powers. --Matthew Fahrenheit ^YRC☺T☺+1 01:44, 24 June 2007 (BST)

I'll move the 3 posts below here (from Hagnat's talk page). It seems everyone is happy with the decision, and SooP has had his say -- boxy ^{T L ZS Nuts2U DA} 02:31, 24 June 2007 (BST)

The point, Boxy, is that we don't blackmail people: either his edits are bad faith, thus vandalism, and he gets warned/banned immediately, or it's an Arbitration case and this gets solved as any other arbitration case should (pick arbs and stuff). We Sysops are not "default Arbitrators", neither we can choose to jump over all the due process because it's there to avoid this kind of abuse. We can't, or shouldn't at least, move around the wiki giving the impression that we own it, or that we can do more things we are allowed to do by the Guidelines above linked by Max. None of us should... except Kevan maybe. --Matthew Fahrenheit ^YRC☺T☺+1 02:41, 24 June 2007 (BST)

Yay, it's all figured out! Thanks boxy. And Matt...it got dealt with. So don't worry.--Lachryma^☭ 02:45, 24 June 2007 (BST)

Well I'll agree that this case was handled badly. I made the ruling over at A/VB that I thought this should have been an A/A case. If the other sysops disagreed with that decision the place to handle it should have been over there. I don't mind people overruling my decisions if they can justify a warning. But by disagreeing over here, and then not doing anything at all over on A/VB it just meant that no decision was made either way. If Hagnat had ruled the way he had here, over there it would have been justified as being an unofficial warning. There's been no "miscarriage of justice" (as it were) here, rather just a decision being made in the wrong area (that's bureaucracy for ya, eh) -- boxy ^{T L ZS Nuts2U DA} 02:53, 24 June 2007 (BST)

Melodramatic much? Don't let your head explode from the modesty, Matt. --Cyberbob ^U! 03:01, 24 June 2007 (BST)

There's still the issue that Hagnat ruled over Soop talk page like it was definitive, when he has no attributions that grant him the power of making such a ruling. Soop may or may not be actually aware that Hagnat hasn't these attributions, so he could have accepted (or not) his ruling as legitimate there because of that misconception. There are too many loose points that stand because the due process wasn't properly followed. --Matthew Fahrenheit ^YRC☺T☺+1 03:05, 24 June 2007 (BST)

Stop trying to start shit, everyone is happy, neither one of them got in trouble for vandalism which was the alternative and all this looks like it you trying to start something with Hagnat, mabey you two should go to arbitration.--karek 03:11, 24 June 2007 (BST)

please karek, dont give him ideas. This is the kind of ruling i really hate to give, and would hate to have some kind of probation against someone put in my head. IMHO, this case is over, all sides of the conflict are already happy with the ruling (which is, labine and soop cant edit any page under the user namespace from the other user), and there is no need for us to follow all the steps of an arby case. Its mere bureaucracy, it stinks and only serves to hold back on justice. --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{[cloned] [mod]} 01:35, 25 June 2007 (BST)

Actually.

If he responds to me, and gives me something to respond to, I will respond. If he doesn't want to me to edit his, then I don't want him to edit mine. If he took the highroad, and didn't worry about it...I wouldn't post it. The truth is, I left wiki up, and basically a dude I know edited it for me. I didn't say any of those things. I'll take the full blame, it was my name. But just understand what's going on before you go "modding" people. That is your job after all, to see what's really going on. I'm not a bad dude, trust me. Just a friendy player. --SooP 03:26, 23 June 2007 (BST)

i never said you were a bad dude :P and labine take the same punishement than you did, he is now forbidden to edit your talk page too. It was a lose-lose decision, and i really dislike to rule this way. Afterall, i always assume we are dealing with people with some kind of maturity in here. --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{[cloned] [mod]} 04:14, 23 June 2007 (BST)

Good, glad that is solved then. --SooP 02:23, 24 June 2007 (BST)