UDWiki:Administration/Arbitration/Iscariot vs Hagnat

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

User:Iscariot versus User:Hagnat

For this edit.

Hagnat is attempting to stealth rule on future cases that highlight his own failures as a systems operator. Such behaviour is clearly contentious, but with the current climate I am forced to take this to arbitration rather than elsewhere. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 03:16, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

You might as well add me to that there Boysenberry, and I would hazard a guess that you'll have to end up adding most of the rest of the Sysop's as well. The edit was not from "on high" and does not limit users such as yourself from filing said frivolous misconduct cases, but in good faith provide some guidelines based upon the recent trends in misconduct cases. In other words the inherent structure and function of the admin pages makes any sysop inherently connected to the admin pages themselves, ergo such an edit must be done by intrinsically connected user. Conndraka^{mod TAZM CFT} 04:28, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I dont accept this case, as iscariot has failed to even attempt to contact me about the nature of this edits. Also, the edit in question is one made by a member of the administration staff in an administration page, with an administration request backed out by another sysop. Its like we editing a group page which we belong to. --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{talk mod} 10:32, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Then a representative will be selected for you, amirite? --Pestolence^(talk) 00:22, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

It's nothing like a group page, Hagnat. You don't have any ownership rights over it -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 11:02 13 January 2009 (BST)

Yeah, it was a poor comparisson. --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{talk mod} 11:18, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

It's a fucking awful comparison. You're basically saying you run the page and you'll do as the damned well please with it and anyone else touch it and they're on a/vb...actually it's a pretty good comparison.--xoxo 13:17, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

ah huh huh huh huh huh huh huh --Cyberbob 13:25, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

ja. that was actually my thought process too lol. Didn't start the sentence planning on ending it like that.--xoxo 13:29, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

lol Liberty 13:32, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I can't find a user called User:Wiki Martyr or one called User:Protector of the Consensus. The header on this case is incorrect and misleading. You can not bring non existent users into arbitration. TO accurately reflect this case the headline needs to changed.--– Nubis ^NWO 13:40, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

This case just got a whole lot more boring. Liberty 13:48, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

yawn. douchebag. --xoxo 13:52, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Wouldn't go that far, but is did just lose a whole lot of flare. Liberty 00:11, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

case was dismissed after new edits made to the misconduct page made the contested edits irrelevant --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{talk mod} 10:24, 14 January 2009 (UTC)