UDWiki:Administration/Arbitration/Matthewfarenheit vs Cyberbob240

From The Urban Dead Wiki
Jump to navigationJump to search

Matthewfarenheit vs. Cyberbob240

Cyberbob240 refuses to recognoze the validity of my vote in the Talk:Suggestions page, striking it out according to "rules" that do not exist, and doing so several times. In the same fashion, his vote has the same (if not more) flaws that mine does, and even like that he refused to change it. Not anyone but himself has said that my vote was either "trolling" or "invalid", and the same user that told me that my vote was struck out pointed out on my talk page the hilarity of Cyberbob240's reasoning. Finally, he has refused my attempts to conciliate our opinions, and as a last resource I'm trying to do that here. --Matthew Fahrenheit YRC | T | W! 01:20, 16 July 2006 (BST)

As someone who watches Suggestions pretty regularly, I am officially volunteering. --Darth Sensitive talkW! 01:27, 16 July 2006 (BST)
No. Cyberbob  Talk  01:33, 16 July 2006 (BST)

I don't quite see how trying to force me in line with your beliefs with Arbitration can be counted as reconciliation, but fine. Whatever. Funnily enough, I don't see myself caring all that much about the outcome of this case. Cyberbob  Talk  01:29, 16 July 2006 (BST)

I nominate Xoid (even though he isn't on the list, he has arbitrated before and I like his style), Karlsbad or hagnat to arbitrate this case. Cyberbob  Talk  01:33, 16 July 2006 (BST)

I don't know many users at all, so I'll start nominating Bob Hammero. --Matthew Fahrenheit YRC | T | W! 01:35, 16 July 2006 (BST)

I'd accept Bob too. I actually don't quite know why I didn't nominate him in the first place. Cyberbob  Talk  01:36, 16 July 2006 (BST)

Arbitration

I will accept both of your requests and serve as arbitrator for this case. As is my standard practice in these cases, I will outline the sequence of events that are to take place: I will request statements from both Cyberbob240 and Matthewfarenheit below. Neither party is to respond directly to the others statement. In the statements should be whatever arguments or evidence, with or without supporting links, that support your position. After I have reviewed the evidence, I will allow for one rebuttal from each party. After reviewing this additional evidence, unless I feel that more is required, I will make my ruling. –Bob Hammero ModB'cratTA 03:18, 16 July 2006 (BST)

Statement from Cyberbob240

I really don't have much to say... except for this. There IS a rule against trolling votes. Matthew's vote was flaming everyone that voted No. IMHO, that is plainly and simply trolling. Moving on.

In childish retaliation for my striking his vote out, Matthew attempted to strike mine out, basing it off a rule he pulled out of his arse. When that didn't work, he said that he would rewrite his vote. I accepted. He changed it to something acceptable, which I left alone. Then, he decided to revert his vote to the original draft. As before, I struck it out and asked him what happened to the acceptable revision.

No reply.

Then, about ten minutes later, he starts up this Arbitration case.

Oh - one more thing. My vote was only aimed at people who are too lazy to run their suggestions through Talk:Suggestions. Why should they deserve special protection? Being a newbie (I am NOT anti-newbie; only anti-n00b) doesn't restrict you from reading the rules and guidelines. Cyberbob  Talk  08:50, 16 July 2006 (BST)

Statement from Matthewfarenheit

First, I must request that every arguing, defense and the develop in general of the case must be carried on the wiki. It's a known fact that moderators of this wiki have a private forum and some people have themselves added as contacts for Instant Messaging, and to promote fairness I wuold wish that none of these channels (not even aditional ones) must be used in any issue concerning this case. This request by the same nature of it can't be enforced, but the sole word of Bob Hammero is enough proof for me.

Following are the most prominent edits (in my POV) that validate my case. I feel compeled to say that it's a little messy, and if the Arbitrator looks here and here he should find all these comments, as none of them were deleted. But some of them aren't in the form that they were first made, as some of them were moved.

Here he first strikes out my vote, then again and again. Note than before that last time, when I unstruck my vote, i asked him for a reconciliation here but he refused. That last struck (where he also calls me an arrogant) is the edit that stands at the moment.

The first time I unstruck my vote here, I gave him a reason as he wanted to in order to avoid problems more than anything else, and also stating that my vote, as it was, was STILL valid. I struck his vote here in the same fashion as he did, to prove my point and (I must admit) with a vengeance. Here he unstrikes his bad intentioned vote, then he admits the troll intention of his vote, plus some anti-newbie attitude as well, but still doesn't change it and keeps striking out my vote.

Looking as how he admited the invalidity of his reasoning, I told him so here and took off all the aditional reasoning here (note that I moved all the reasoning to the discussion part of the page, and never deleted anything but strikeouts). In the same edits, you can see that I mispercepted the anti-newbie attitude as a personal insult, but he told me otherwise here, with more anti-newbie attitude involved.

The fact is that he strike out my vote enforcing a rule that does NOT exist, wants to hold an edit war instead of accept reason, and holds bias by striking my vote but not changing his own, that holds the same (if not more) trolling content than mine. --Matthew Fahrenheit YRC | T | W! 06:33, 16 July 2006 (BST)


As per the terms I set out above, I have read both of your statements, and performed all of the necessary research on my own. Below I shall give both of you one chance to rebut the other's statement, by providing any contradictory evidence or arguments that you see fit. If you are happy with your argument as it stands, please state something to that effect so that I will know when it is time for me to give the ruling. –Bob Hammero ModB'cratTA 09:09, 16 July 2006 (BST)

Rebuttal from Cyberbob240

The fact that I admitted the trolling nature of my vote is irrelevant. We are discussing Matthew's vote here, not mine. He's just trying to distract the arbitrator's attention with red herrings (although I would like to state that his striking mine was childish revenge).

Here is the rule against trolling votes. Point 1, more specifically. While it doesn't specify that votes trolling users other than the suggestor are strikeable, there are innumerable cases of such votes being struck - both on the Suggestions page and in policy changes like the one in question. Plenty of precedent, IMO.

I wish to reiterate that I am NOT, I repeat NOT, anti-newbie. I am anti-n00b. There is a difference, which I'm sure you're aware of, Bob. See my talk page for a good example of me helping out a newbie that sought my assistance. If he was a n00b, he would have either proceeded to insult me for putting his pages up for Speedy Deletion, or simply tried to remove the {{speedydelete}} template from the pages. And had I been anti-newbie, I would have simply refused to help him out - rudely.

One more thing. Matthew actually revised his vote, adding reasoning to it which made it acceptable - and I left it alone. It was only when he suddenly decided to revert it back to the original copy that I struck it again. Cyberbob  Talk  09:19, 16 July 2006 (BST)

Rebuttal from Matthewfarenheit

There's almost no need for rebutal on my part, but a few things to point out:

  • The rule Cyberbob240 points out is for the Suggestions Page and that page alone (well, of course Previous days suggestions, etc.). The voting at the Suggestions Talk page is not tied to these rules, because if it where then we should put that policy under "Peer undecided" after two weeks of votes (?).
  • I started the arbitration case rather quickly because I saw no point in prolonging the edit war when neither Cyberbob240 or me seemed to agree or at least to yield. I know that most arbitration cases start after very long edit wars and discussions, but instead of feeding the drama I feel that a third party involved wuold be a faster and more friendly solution, so I choosed it TWICE (See my offer to Cybebrob240 to get a moderator on his side?). I hope this is seen as a strenght of my personality and judgement power and not as a weakness.
  • Finally, let me point this out: Coincidentally, a moderator (Jedaz) unaware of the arbitration case that was going on, unstriked my vote and said that there was not any rule for Cyberbob240 to struck my vote. His ruling may not be valid for this arbitration case, but it stands as a proof that Cyberbob240 is pushing his luck here instead of enforcing any rule.

Evertything else was already pointed out on my first statement, so that's all.--Matthew Fahrenheit YRC | T | W! 20:20, 16 July 2006 (BST)

Ruling

After reviewing the evidence, the appropriate guidelines, and your arguments, I have come to the conclusion that both of you have gone against both the spirit and the letter of the policies of this wiki.

Cyberbob240 and Matthewfarenheit:

Both of you seem to be unaware of the actual policy regarding voting on policy changes on the suggestions talk place. The policy in question can be found here. I will be referring to this policy in my ruling.

Cyberbob240:

The rule against trolling votes covers only the main suggestions page. It does not cover the suggestions talk page, and it does not cover votes for policy changes on the suggestions talk page. In the applicable rules for policy changes on that page, there is no rule against trolling votes. Thus, you were not allowed to strike Matthewfarenheit's vote.

Matthewfarenheit:

It was, quite frankly, childish of you to strike Cyberbob240's vote out of retaliation. However angry you might be, or however frustrating of an edit conflict you are having, you are not allowed to vandalize the wiki in order to get a point across. Furthermore, you are also incorrect: "Spam" is one of the three allowed vote types for policy changes on the suggestions talk page, along with "Yes" and "No."

Cyberbob240 and Matthewfarenheit:

In my opinion, both of your votes are in somewhat bad taste, but not troll-like in nature, due to the fact that neither vote specifically attacks another person.

However, you have both acted foolishly, and gotten caught up in what is quite frankly a very petty edit war. However, given my experience with both of you, I do not believe it is the case that either of you knowingly violated the rules for policy changes on the suggestions talk page, and so, neither of you will receive a warning.

However, in light of the difficulty that you seem to have in getting along together, neither one of you is to speak directly to or about the other person on the wiki for the following two weeks, beginning 01:52, 17 July 2006 (BST). You may post on the same page as each other, but in no edit shall you address the other person directly or indirectly, or make reference to them in any way.

Both of your votes on the suggestions talk page are valid, and both will stand as they are, unstruck.

I expect both of you to become familiar with the policies regarding policy changes on the suggestions talk page, and follow them more closely in the future. Since I know that you will have knowledge of them in any future similar situations, do not expect that I will be as lenient if you violate them again.

To avoid any future lack of knowledge regarding the applicable policies, I will link the policy change rules more prominently from the suggestions talk page.

This is my ruling. Violation of the terms will be treated as vandalism, in accordance with the policies for this page. –Bob Hammero ModB'cratTA 01:52, 17 July 2006 (BST)