UDWiki:Administration/Arbitration/Cyberbob240 vs Nalikill
|
Administration Services — Protection. This page has been protected against editing. See the archive of recent actions or the Protections log. |
Cyberbob vs. Nalikill
His arbitration of Jack's Cold Sweat v Team Zombie Hardcore was quite frankly a disgrace. It totally ignored the established method of arbitration, and violated a number of set community precedents (the most obvious of these being the forcing of parties to apologise). In doing so he violated the trust placed upon him by the parties of the case to handle affairs properly, and as such I move that he be barred from arbitrating any more cases for a period of time which I will leave for the arbitrator to set (I don't know what would be fair). --Cyberbob DORIS CGR U! 05:22, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
For those of you ignoring this case for fear I'm trolling; I'm not. This is serious. --Cyberbob DORIS CGR U! 06:00, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
I'll offer to Arbitrate--THE Godfather of Яesensitized, Anime Sucks Yalk | W! U! WMM| CC CPFOAS 
LOE ZHU | Яezzens 06:02, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
I volunteer to arbitrate this case. --Z. slay3r • Talk 06:18, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Well, i guess i could offer. --The Grimch U! E! WAT! 06:40, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
- I accept you, though I have severe doubts about Nali. --Cyberbob DORIS CGR U! 06:56, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
- I can understand that, but i just hope he realises i have nothing personal against him. Its his actions that generate the immune reponse from me, nothing else. Those actions improve, response goes away. What ive done with him isnt any more than id do to anyone else in the same situation. --The Grimch U! E! WAT! 14:10, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
I am Spartacus... err, i volunteer. --People's Commissar Hagnat [cloned] [mod] 13:54, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
- I'm going to wait for Nalikill's response to Grim before I accept or reject any more applicants. --Cyberbob DORIS CGR U! 14:30, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
I accept this case too. --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ #nerftemplatedsigs 13:55, 22 January 2008 (UTC)(In English, I volunteer to arbitrate. --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ #nerftemplatedsigs 13:56, 22 January 2008 (UTC))
- I'm going to wait for Nalikill's response to Grim before I accept or reject any more applicants. --Cyberbob DORIS CGR U! 14:30, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
I'll toss my hat into the ring in the off-chance that Nali rejects Grim. -- Cheeseman W!RandomTalk 18:29, 22 January 2008 (UTC) Actually, after reading all the bullshit that's going on here involving Nali I've decided against Arbitrating and I've decided that I'll join Cyberbob's case, the TZH case was an utter shambles. -- Cheeseman W!RandomTalk 18:38, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
There are only a few people I would accept as fair- 73, AHLG, or Vantar. Cases such as cheeseman's above show the potential bias of other arbitrators. Nalikill TALK E! W! M! USAI 20:36, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
- Hell, I'll volunteer. I'll be impartial obviously.--SeventythreeTalk 23:37, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
- "Fair"? You mean you'd accept people you know would rule with you. Hmph. Having said that, I believe Seventythree is able to be objective. I accept him. --Cyberbob DORIS CGR U! 02:56, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Very Well. I'm sure neither of you need to be reminded, but I'm creating two sections below, one for Cyberbob, one for Nali, Cyber, you make your argument, with links, if applicable, then Nali you do the same. If there are still things that need to be worked out I may ask you both to make a secondry statement. Try and keep personal attacks and other drama inducing material to a minimum. Everyone else, valid comments either on the talkpage or my talkpage. --SeventythreeTalk 07:41, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
I would like to be added to this case. I do not care much about the TZH listing on the suburbs page, however I have some objections to the way in which the arbitration was handled and would appreciate the opportunity to air my grievances. --Chimera 07:44, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Cyberbob's Statement
I basically said my piece at the beginning of the case. Beyond that, I don't have much else to say. I would, however, like to reaffirm my disgust at the manner in which the case was conducted. It was a shambles, and violated several key precepts of arbitration which I have already outlined in my opening statement.
Given that I am far from the only person expressing disgust at Nalikill's handling of the case, I would appreciate it if the arbitrator would not take into consideration the history Nalikill and I have. I am sure that, had I not brought this case against him, someone else would have and so I hope that the arbitrator will not assume bad faith on my part. --Cyberbob DORIS CGR U! 10:01, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
My answers to Seventythree's questions:
- With regard to the extra people, I have no qualms with them joining; though I do agree (and have said this to Krazy Monkey on his talk page) that there isn't much anyone else could say.
- What do you mean by precedent? Precedent as in someone being barred from being able to arbitrate (of which there is none), or precedent for apologies being discouraged (of which there is plenty)?
- Specific edit-challenges... I didn't like the way he tried to pre-arbitrate the case (by which I mean arbitrate before he'd been chosen), I didn't like how he asked for ingame evidence and evidence from Brainstock when it is a) primarily an on-wiki issue and b) up to the parties of the case to come up with what they think is relevant evidence. It is not the place of the arbitrator to pre-emptively tell them what is relevant and what is not. Most especially damning in my eyes is the way he argued with the parties over their evidence (there are too many diff links to post, but it's evident where he has done so upon a readthrough of the case in question). Then of course there's the ruling; but you didn't need me to tell you that ;) --Cyberbob DORIS CGR U! 14:18, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
- That's just about all I need to know, thankyou Cyberbob. After Nalikill has posted his statement the two of you will have your chance, If you wish it to post a rebuttal if you feel it is neccisary. Otherwise I will be considering the ruling I wish to make on this case.--SeventythreeTalk 18:12, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
I am joining this case but as Cyberbob has said, there isn't really much to be else to be said past what he's said already. -- Cheeseman W!RandomTalk 22:40, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Nalikill's Statement
Cyberbob is just generating drama and crap. I was going to log off anyway, and he started this case to try to take advantage of my statement, and get an arby case arbitrated against me without me here. I will stay off arbitration for the month I'm logged off; and I can't imagine him wanting a longer period than that, anything longer would be pure absurdity. In addition to that, consider this.
Both parties must agree to arbitration.
If I agree to promise to link anyone I offer to arbitrate for to that case, then they will have all of my rulings, and be able to see if they believe I was a fair arbitrator. It's not fair to make people's decisions for them. They have the right to choose me as an arbitrator if they want to, and it's not fair of Cyberbob to remove that possibility from them. It was my first time arbitrating, and this was a case that was unusual in that it required mostly screenshots rather than internal links for its evidence, and most people were complaining that this was an in game dispute. Me and a few other people recognized that in this case, and possibly even uniquely in this case, that the in-game elements and evidence were inseperable from each other.
And I request that we DO bring Cyberbob's record into this, because prior malice against me shows that this is just his last gasp at an attempt at vengance, at an attempt to attack me and score a "victory" in his campaign against me. I've stated that I'd log off for a month- so I would've automatically not been arbitrating cases for a month. And if he wants further than that, that's beyond even the scope of Vandal Banning at current- VB only has what, three or four cases of one month bans that aren't permas? So to ask for more than a month would simply be excessive; and he would've had a month anyway. So it can only be malice on his part.
Even if he brought this in good faith, he was influenced by his biases. And in truth, he is asking for what he would've had already. Here's what I am seeking, in some form, in the ruling. 1.Cyberbob banned from going on my talk page, or from replying to my comments, without your approval on your talk page first. Or at least banned for a reasonable period of time from replying to my comments or at the least going onto my talk page. 2.In return, I offer that which I was willing to do from the start, and had intended on doing:
- A.Month away from arbitration, incorporated into my wikibreak
- B.When I return, I promise to link anyone I offer to arbitrate for to my case, incorporating the statement, "I have arbitrated before, please review the case here"
Thank you for reading all this; what all this boils down to is just I want to be left the heck alone and allowed to take my break in peace. Nalikill TALK E! W! M! USAI 22:27, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
- Thankyou Nalikill, that seems to be everything I need at the moment. Now we just have to wait to see wether Cyberbob wishes to make a rebuttal.--SeventythreeTalk 22:32, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Cyberbob's Rebuttal
Well, obviously any attack on me personally is an ad hominem attack that has no place being on this page. It's irrelevant, in any case; as I said in my opening statement, if I had not been the one to bring this cast against Nalikill someone else undoubtedly would have. I think, given the considerable outsider (largely being people who have no history with him) support for my case, that even if I had made this case in bad faith (which I haven't), it wouldn't matter. He wants to paint me as some petty troll who would snatch at any chance to get at him? Any reasonable person is able to see that as nothing like reality. I dislike him, yes. I would shed no tears if he was to begone forever, yes. I care enough that I would go out of my way to see this become a reality, NO. The reality is that he is simply trying to influence the arbitrator against me with an appeal to emotion and logical fallacies, which I think is a pretty weak argument, and is in fact a red herring. This arbitration is about the manner in which he handled the case, nothing more.
Now, on to the ridiculous restrictions Nalikill has suggested. Restricting me from his talk page is all well and good (I have no further desire to post there, so as he put it - "he is asking for what he would've had already"), but a blanket restriction from every post he makes everywhere is quite simply draconian and uncalled for under the circumstances. Similarly, his "offering" of a month ban is ridiculous. He has broken his "wikibreak" so many times it has been as if he never went on it in the first place. Every single personal resolution he has made in the past has been broken, so why should he be trusted now? He can say that he "really means" this one, with all the sincere and honest language in the world, but one must remember that every previous resolution was accompanied by the exact same thing.
It is true that both parties must agree to an arbitrator. I am trying to prevent any further parties from hurting themselves through choosing Nalikill as their arbitrator until he has had some time to think about the gigantic screwup that was his last one. No, posting a link to his previous cases is not enough (though I would support it for a period of time after his return to being able to arbitrate). People often do not check links, and even if they did - who could be bothered reading through that monstrosity? Certainly not someone who is relatively new to the wiki and/or does not take part in the majority of discussions (these are the people I'm concerned for, as they won't know who the people offering to arbitrate their cases are).
As far as the ingame evidence goes, it's all well and good for it to be offered by the parties where relevant. But to lead them on? It isn't the job of the arbitrator to lead people on to give whatever evidence he thinks they should give, it's his job to ask them questions (NOT as part of an argument, which you'll note Nalikill entered into) and leave it up to them to offer whatever evidence they see fit. --Cyberbob DORIS CGR U! 03:19, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
Nalikill's Rebuttal
Nalikill does not wish to enter a rebuttal. See Here--SeventythreeTalk 09:10, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
Arbitrator ruling
Seeing as Nalikill has decided not to post a rebuttal, I will now present my ruling.
To begin with, the case Nalikill ruled on was a bit of a cock up. Nalikill did not follow established procedure, and this contributed to the case going steadily downhill. I would like to mention, however that I do not beleive it to be the total fault of Nalikill. It was a complicated and potentialy drama fueled case that, I beleive an established arbiter would have had trouble with. This was Nali's first case, he had no previous experiance and while he made several mistakes, in a less highly charged case this may not have been such an issue.
In response to Nalikill's comments regarding possible bias on the aprt of Cyberbob I am well aware that the two of you have not quite seen eye to eye recently. On that note I would encourage the two of you to either advoid situations where you have to communicate, or learn to get on better. It doesn't realy do anything for either of you. Obviously this is just advice, there is no way I'm going to try and enforce that!
Bearing this all in mind, I am going to ask that Nali Refrains from acting as an arbiter for a period of two weeks. This is not a punishment, it is to allow Nalikill time to look through the precise rules and guidelines of the arbitration pages, as well as maybe read some previous cases to see how arbitration is best handled. Two weeks should also allow for all the drama to blow over a bit.
I am also requesting that Cyberbob refrains from posting anything deliberately insulting on Nalikill's talkpage. By deliberately insulting I mean an actual, out-there, in your face insult, like, for example "Nali, you're a fucking retard" not something that could be taken as an insult, something reffering to an insult or somehting linking to an insulting picture. I do just mean that Cyberbob is not allowed to post a direct insult to Nalikill on Nalikill's talkpage. If you feel you have to insult Nalikill, well, use another page.
In conclusion, Nali may not serve as aritrator for two weeks to give him time to learn the guidelines properly and Cyberbob is not allowed to directly insult Nalikill on his talkpage for 4 months
I would also like to enquire about the possibility of creating a set of Arbitrator do's and don'ts maybe, and possibly providing some form of link to Karek's Arbitration Surveilance page.--SeventythreeTalk 13:33, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
- Fine by me. --Cyberbob DORIS CGR U! 13:40, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
- Er, one question: do the two weeks start now, or at the end of Nali's "wikibreak"? Surely it would defeat the purpose of having the bannage in place if it's going to be over before he returns. --Cyberbob DORIS CGR U! 13:42, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
- well, firstly It's not exactly a ban, and secondly It's going to pretty much have to start now. Nali's "wikibreak" is a self imposed leave of absence, it would ahrdly be fair to compound that further, also there would then be nothing to stop him canceling his wikibreak and editing from now. It's not a formal ban and therefore cannot be counted in the same way as a formal ban. If he where to do as HAgnat and thekooks have done and request that he be banned for a set period of time then I guess the "ban" I have imposed would come into effect after he got back.--SeventythreeTalk 13:51, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
