UDWiki:Administration/Arbitration/Amazing vs Karlsbad
From The Urban Dead Wiki
Jump to navigationJump to search
|
Administration Services — Protection. This page has been protected against editing. See the archive of recent actions or the Protections log. |
Amazing vs Karlsbad
Karlsbad has promised to edit all of my text that he deems unnecissary. I would appreciate a quick Mod/Abritator warning to him that he is not permitted to do such things.
Basically, I posted a message asking for help for my group against his. He edited my post saying it was old information, thusly trying to stop help from coming to aid against his group. Now he has said that tomorrow he will do more of the same, editing out everything I have said that he thinks is "neither informative nor professional".
Karlsbad is simply threatening to use the Wiki as a device to inflict grief because of the request to CMS for asisstance. (After which a scout was sent to check on the situation, and the zombies fled the area. Basically sour grapes.)
Again, a simple note informing him that he is not permitted to do that would suffice. -- Amazing 22:23, 1 April 2006 (BST)
- *Sigh* Karlsbad edit was done in good faith, therefore is not a vandalism. He added the edditorial note because he altered his own post on that thread, and added that editorial note thing so any people will realise it was an outdated response, and so you could change it to reflect his latest edit. Again, he did nothing to harm the wiki, he was actually trying to help.
- Anyway, he is not supposed to edit things this way. If he want to add further information to one of his own messages, he must leave it after any replys that same message received. Karl, i hope you to change that.
- Amazing, this could have been worked out without you running to the arbitration page IF you talked to him without threatning to report him as a vandal. Try to be polite in the next time, and you will surprise yourself. --hagnat talk 23:15, 1 April 2006 (BST)
- I didn't "Run" anywhere, thank you very much. In your twisted version of this, I would waste a lot of time reverting everything of mine that he editd. In my version, I am asking for someone to make note that he is not allowed to go willy-nilly editing my comments across the Wiki. Don't tell me to be polite to someone who is being less than polite to me. Why does everyone expect me to shrug off attacks, vandalism, insult, and impoliteness while absolving the other person of all of it? (Now I'll probably be told I'm rude again in the face of your condescending behavior.) -- Amazing 23:29, 1 April 2006 (BST)
- You see. There is this whole thing about NOT descending to the level of your enemies to attack them. If you talk politely with them, they will be polite with you. If they are not, this doesnt give you the rights to be unpolite with them. Again. Next time. try to solve things politely, give space for common sense, explain people how they should do things right. And then, only when you finds no way to solve things alone, ask for arbitration. --hagnat talk 23:46, 1 April 2006 (BST)
- Being polite (not confronting him) and not seeking abritration would result in my having to waste a lot of time reverting his vandalism if he does indeed go through all my text to remove what he deems unnecissary or unprofessional. Sorry, but that's not really my best option. Granted, nothing may have come of this either - but at least I tried to prevent wiki-abusive behavior, y'dig?. -- Amazing 00:12, 2 April 2006 (BST)
- You see. There is this whole thing about NOT descending to the level of your enemies to attack them. If you talk politely with them, they will be polite with you. If they are not, this doesnt give you the rights to be unpolite with them. Again. Next time. try to solve things politely, give space for common sense, explain people how they should do things right. And then, only when you finds no way to solve things alone, ask for arbitration. --hagnat talk 23:46, 1 April 2006 (BST)
- Is this just that he's commenting on your posts by putting his own clearly-labelled-as-his comments inside yours in superscript, instead of underneath? I don't think we've got a policy on comment format, and I don't see that this is confusing anything. --Spiro 23:10, 1 April 2006 (BST)
- Both altruistic viewpoints, to be sure. Basically it amounts to:
- Hey everyone, come to these coords for a meeting! There is no meeting, don't come -- Userguy 23:29, 1 April 2006 (BST)
- No, people should not be allowed to add their own editorial commentary into someone's text, before their signiture.. Just because the letters are raised, you're telling me that it's not an attempt to destroy/dismiss the text itself? Plus, I am still waiting on a comment about his promised editing/removal of everything he deems unnecissary of mine. If that sounds like good faith to you, I'm afraid you do not understand the concept. :X -- Amazing 23:29, 1 April 2006 (BST)
- That's deliberately misleading, I can see that he's signing the superscript edits. It is a bit weird, though, yes, so maybe you could edit them into normal-sized indented responses for him, or talk to him about it. And him promising to edit all text that's "neither informative nor professional" is what wikis are about, he's aiming it at everyone, not just you. He's entitled to the opinion that your edits aren't informative or professional, you can call for arbitration over it after he's edited them, if there's disagreement and you can't resolve it.
- But as things stand this isn't an arbitration issue. Arbitration is for "occasions where wiki users find themselves unable to reach accord". It doesn't look like you're particularly trying to reach this, you're just ignoring his points and angrily threatening to report him for vandalism, in what seems to be quite a fresh argument against a new wiki member. You should at least make some effort to compromise, and show that he's unwilling to accept this, before bringing the case to Arbitration. Thanks. --Spiro 00:01, 2 April 2006 (BST)
- Well, it was faily obvious to me that he had a set plan and was going to enact it "tomorrow" by his own statement. I suppose I should wait until next week to come to Abritration with it? I dunno. Seems appropriate to nip it in the bud when it's a promised action, I told him not to do it, and he replied saying he still would. I would also like to remind you that Talk pagers do not have to be informative or professional, nor do pages which said user owns, and I'm sure there are other cases - so no, removing all non-professional or non-informative posts (and keep in mind, this is his opinion as to what is relevant or "professional") is not allowed nor supported. -- Amazing 00:09, 2 April 2006 (BST)
- Well, he didnt say he would edit any talk page. Did he ? As far as I can see it, he only placed that editorial note in the Caiger Mall Survivors front page. His statement to remove all not informative or unprofessional posts were obviously targeted at that same page. --hagnat talk 00:18, 2 April 2006 (BST)
- Hrm. All I can do is quote Karlsbad himself: "Currently, however, I plan on editing all text tommorrow that is neither informative nor professional, such as your responses, as they add nothing to the wiki." I mean, the CMS page has three "responces" from me. That hardly seems to warrent the words "all text" and "such as your responces" cites my commentary on the CMS page as only part of the intended edits. Furthermore, just look at his inflammatory and insulting reply to my original post there, and you'll see the nature of his attitude toward this scenerio and probably the future edits. -- Amazing 00:23, 2 April 2006 (BST)
- Mrh?He was very polite in the CMS page. He wasnt in your talk page after you threatned to report him here. This is what i am talking about. You failed to be polite with him, he failed to be polite with you too in his second reply. If you want others to be polite with you, be polite with them. --hagnat talk 01:08, 2 April 2006 (BST)
- Are you joking? His first reply to me included: "any assisstance would be in the form of charity work for the pitiful" and that sounds polite to you? "Mrh?" indeed. -- Amazing 01:33, 2 April 2006 (BST)
- Mrh?He was very polite in the CMS page. He wasnt in your talk page after you threatned to report him here. This is what i am talking about. You failed to be polite with him, he failed to be polite with you too in his second reply. If you want others to be polite with you, be polite with them. --hagnat talk 01:08, 2 April 2006 (BST)
- Hrm. All I can do is quote Karlsbad himself: "Currently, however, I plan on editing all text tommorrow that is neither informative nor professional, such as your responses, as they add nothing to the wiki." I mean, the CMS page has three "responces" from me. That hardly seems to warrent the words "all text" and "such as your responces" cites my commentary on the CMS page as only part of the intended edits. Furthermore, just look at his inflammatory and insulting reply to my original post there, and you'll see the nature of his attitude toward this scenerio and probably the future edits. -- Amazing 00:23, 2 April 2006 (BST)
- Well, he didnt say he would edit any talk page. Did he ? As far as I can see it, he only placed that editorial note in the Caiger Mall Survivors front page. His statement to remove all not informative or unprofessional posts were obviously targeted at that same page. --hagnat talk 00:18, 2 April 2006 (BST)
- Well, it was faily obvious to me that he had a set plan and was going to enact it "tomorrow" by his own statement. I suppose I should wait until next week to come to Abritration with it? I dunno. Seems appropriate to nip it in the bud when it's a promised action, I told him not to do it, and he replied saying he still would. I would also like to remind you that Talk pagers do not have to be informative or professional, nor do pages which said user owns, and I'm sure there are other cases - so no, removing all non-professional or non-informative posts (and keep in mind, this is his opinion as to what is relevant or "professional") is not allowed nor supported. -- Amazing 00:09, 2 April 2006 (BST)
Thanks to both Abritrators, I believe this may be resolved. I just wanted someone to speak with the user. Moderators (as opposed to Abritrators) have been less than responsive, even in a one-on-one setting, so I figured this was the way to find someone other than myself (since no would be inclined to listen to me, of course) who would speak to this individual. Thanks. -- Amazing 00:17, 2 April 2006 (BST)
It is nice to know that the person that demands arbitration can be calmed down by our volunteer "wiki staff". I personally thank all the users that attempted to discuss the meanings of my posts and I regret not being able to do so myself.
- I was unaware of the rules, and improperly noted the irreverence of Amazings reply in consideration to my newly edited post. My words of "Currently"- yadda yadda "-such as your responses" were in the CMS section, and I assumed wrongly that it was known that I only referred to the specific comments about the CMS main page. I should have been more explict so that all users, even overtly passionate ones, would be able to comprehend my meaning.
- Secondly, I was unaware that Amazing's cry for help was in response to the remaining feral zombies, not any assualt by TSO. I wrongly assumed that any survivor group with the history of CDF would have been able to fight off feral zombies, and therefore assumed that his reply was dated to the period of time at which TSO was assualting Crossman, which would have been outdated considering the victory already acheived by my accomplished zombie breathren. Therefore it is of my opinion that my reply is not needed to be included to defend the achievements of my zombie horde, and could therefore rightly be whiped from the front page as unneeded text.
- Lastly, as a side note: Amazing, I find it worring that you say you do not believe (as you noted by saying "Being polite (not confronting him)") that it is possible to confront someone and remain polite to them without involving arbitration. I would recommend a deeper thought process to the tone and method in which you deliver your responses in the future and see if it is possible to do the same work that has been done here could have been done without taking the time of others simply because you believe that it would save you personally time.
- Thank you again --Karlsbad 03:13, 2 April 2006 (BST)
