UDWiki talk:Administration/Arbitration/Matthewfahrenheit vs Cyberbob240
Hangnut Butting In! Vol. II
|
Administration Services — Protection. This page has been protected against editing. See the archive of recent actions or the Protections log. |
As much as gage knows your position, i dont think the entire wiki knows it, bob. This is not how the wiki works, and you have banned people before for things that were said outside the wiki but not in here. (like, in one of the above cases cited by matthew). You have been using your mod powers as a Badge of Reason against matthew for a long long time already bob, and nothing would please me more than to see you without it. --People's Commissar Hagnat [cloned] [mod] 16:42, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
- You want to talk about this case, Hangnut? Sorry, you can't. Not on this page, anyway. I don't see your name mentioned anywhere in the case. You want an answer to that, you're going to have to a) remove it from here (I give you permission to delete this comment) and b) bring it up somewhere else. Cyberbob Talk 17:35, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
- A long long time ago, in a galaxy far away.. erm.. we kind of agree that mods were to be treated as arbitrators, without the need for them to sign in the arbitration page. That made complete sense, since they were already trusted their powers by the community, so why wouldnt they be able to do arbitration work ? Anyway, you suck. And once upon a time a fellow friend said something about "how quick some miscobitration cases are archieved so fast you didnt even noticed they were ruled upon" --People's Commissar Hagnat [cloned] [mod] 22:45, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
- Wow. Even by your standards that was pretty incoherent. Would you like to try again? Cyberbob Talk 05:36, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
- You quote Amazing and somehow expect Cyberbob to change his ways? Jesus Christ, that is thick Hagnat, even for you. –Xoid M•T•FU! 06:41, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
- At least someone have noticed the amazing reference there :) anyway, we should try to keep arbitration and misconduct cases that were ruled on atleast a few days in the main page before archiving them... this gives room for people to read the ruling, and comment on it if needed. --People's Commissar Hagnat [cloned] [mod] 18:47, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
- A long long time ago, in a galaxy far away.. erm.. we kind of agree that mods were to be treated as arbitrators, without the need for them to sign in the arbitration page. That made complete sense, since they were already trusted their powers by the community, so why wouldnt they be able to do arbitration work ? Anyway, you suck. And once upon a time a fellow friend said something about "how quick some miscobitration cases are archieved so fast you didnt even noticed they were ruled upon" --People's Commissar Hagnat [cloned] [mod] 22:45, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
Aaaaand... allow me to say that this was one of the worst ruling i ever saw... only those who said "sideA must appologize to sideB" lose to this... and in this case ster ruling on zing vs. zar is indeed the worst ruling ever. --People's Commissar Hagnat [cloned] [mod] 22:48, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
- Oh wise hagnat. Tell me what you, in your infinite wisdom, would have ruled. It is easy to be a critic.--Gage 06:27, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
- My 'infinite wisdom' would have been just a little harsh on bob's side... and asked him to explain his side of this story in this wiki, so matthew could comment on it... its no use to say 'the arby knows what i dont like about you, so suck it', because this would turn you into a biased arb and wouldnt allow the other side to reply to the accusations... --People's Commissar Hagnat [cloned] [mod] 18:47, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
