UDWiki talk: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

I would simply like to voice my support for the complainants against Nalikill here. I think that case should never have been brought to arbitration - only the thinnest pretext to argue in-game nonsense was supplied "It's about their group identity." Bullshit - it's an arbitrator's job to say, "Horseshit guys, take it to the game."

Also, while I'll leave the review of the code to others, it strongly appears that Nalikill violated basic rules of arbitration.

So HUZZAH Cyberbob. Stop the madness that is Nalikill with even the thinnest veneer of authority. This proves for the 100000th time that he shouldn't have it. Who's planning the party for his inevitable year-long ban? I'll bring the beer.--Sarah Silverman 16:13, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

The case was solid enough - it was aimed at resolving a flamewar over a group's on-wiki label. The manner in which Nali presided over it was a different story. You don't argue with the parties yourself; you leave that up to them and allow only a limited number of rebuttals within a strict set of guidelines (restricting each rebuttal to one edit being a cornerstone of the process) to prevent the case from dissolving into another dramafest. You also don't force parties to apologise to each other; this is one of the most well-established community precedents on the wiki. --Cyberbob ^{DORIS CGR U!} 16:29, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

But isn't the act of debating another group's wiki label spamming the wiki? I really can't be bothered to worry about such things, honestly. It's not like TZH declared that they were now a PK group and it needed changing, it was punitive and a waste of our collective time. --Sarah Silverman 16:37, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

To an observer it may seem trivial, but to them it was obviously a matter of importance. I've only ever seen cases thrown out before they were able to begin in extreme circumstances, and even then not without considerable debate. --Cyberbob ^{DORIS CGR U!} 16:47, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

What happens to the old case once it has been decided that the ruling was bad? Does it linger in the archives as a precedent, does it get redecided or does it get thrown out? --Chimera 07:38, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

It will probably go into the archive with a note saying that it is completely unbinding in any way whatsoever, for the sake of the SysOps, and that note will probably include direction to this case but, ultimately, it's up to SeventyThree what such a note might contain.--Karek^maps?! 07:47, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Right. A note huh? I guess it will say something along the lines of this Due to another arbitration case (link to Nali VS Cyberbob) the ruling for this case has been considered null and not binding. This is because of a ruling which stated that this case was not conducted properly by the arbiter. Due to this ruling, it would be wrong for the ruling of this case to be enforced. While this sets a precedent for further rulings to be challenged the arbiter strongly advises caution in challenging other rulings, as the case would have to prove that either the ruling or the method of the arbiter was wrong or insufficient to the degree that it undermined the workings of arbitration or undermined the workings of the wiki as a whole.

Hopefuly this fully explains the precident I am setting here, as well as my concerns (and I imagine the concerns of others as well) that this should not be veiwed as a "get out of jail free card" to any user unhappy with the ruling they received. Any adivice/opinions warmly welcomed.--Seventythree^Talk 11:18, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I fixed some spelling in the note, other than that it looks good to me. --Karek^maps?! 11:46, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

O.K, I'm not sure about the protocol for archiving arbitration cases, if any further input is required by me, please let me kknow.--Seventythree^Talk 13:15, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

haha - i love it how he's banned from personal attacks for 4 months, after which they may resume :P Yeah i just skimmed this, thought i better update myself on 73's work.--Jed 12:11, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Not personal attacks full stop, just direct attacks. I'm still able to make insinuations and such. --Cyberbob ^{DORIS CGR U!} 12:14, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

So much for his "wiki-break" eh? :P -- Cheeseman ^W!RandomTalk 12:21, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

You try self imposed absence from the wiki, it is HELL! A/A is totally my new favourite soap, everyday there's new twists, awesome!--Jed 12:34, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

The ban was mostly because the two of them had been having an on-off row for the last month or so. I was hoping that with Nali going on a wiki-break and with such a ban on direct insults the row might die down a bit. Plus, Nalikill had a valid concern regarding people (especialy) Cyberbob insulting him. While I cannot rule that Cyberbob cannot do anything to even insinuate an insult againgst Nalikill on the whole wiki, I could at least rule out the possibiblity of Nalikill finding insults on his talkpage, which can't be very nice. If I came across as sarchastic in my ruling regarding Nalikill's and Cyberbob's conflict it is merely because their ongoing row has made them both look a bit daft. And, yes, Cyberbob, if you completely missed the point of all that you could still insinuate insults againgst Nalikill, I cannot and should not remove your right to do that. I realy hope you don't though.--Seventythree^Talk 12:40, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

The point you miss (and I did explain this to you in my case) is that Nali's ability to stick to anything is a joke. This "wikibreak" is a farce - look at his contribs. --Cyberbob ^{DORIS CGR U!} 22:34, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Also - in your haste to try and magically patch things up you basically ignored the point of the actual case. Two weeks when someone is supposedly (heavy emphasis on supposedly) away for a month is really fucking pointless. I know it, you know it. So what's the point of even bothering to include that in the ruling? --Cyberbob ^{DORIS CGR U!} 22:36, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

The point of the case is that Nalikill completely messed up the arbitration case. No-one can realy deny that. What I don't want to do though is punish someone for making a cock-up of their first case. The point of the two-week break from serving as arbiter is that he gets time to look into how arbitration is supposed to be done. I'm not going to ban someone from arbitrating completely, and it's not supposed to be a punishment. It's supposed to be time that he should use to learn how to arbitrate. --Seventythree^Talk 11:35, 29 January 2008 (UTC)