UDWiki:Administration/Arbitration/Hagnat vs The General
|
Administration Services — Protection. This page has been protected against editing. See the archive of recent actions or the Protections log. |
The General vs. Hagnat
The below case was archieved by me, and General brought it back to the main page. TG vs. TER484 is a stupid case, based on the fact that general (and most of this wiki userbase) doesnt own a sceen wide enough to see terminator's user page. Not only the case is stupid, but general havent contacted any arbitrator to solve it, even when asked to. Now, i ask someone to rule if the below case should or not be arhieved. I accept any arb, even Amazing if he could. --People's Commissar Hagnat [cloned] [mod] 21:35, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
- To note, I did accept an arbitrator! If you had actually read the case! Whether you think it is a stupid case or not is not relevent, as that is like saying that I can remove a misconduct case against me because I believe it to be "stupid". What he did is at best arguable, at worst vandalism.--The General T Sys U! P! F! 21:40, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
- I'm willing to arbitrate on this case. --Matthew Fahrenheit YRC☺T☺+1 21:42, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
- You failed to further contact that arbitrator then General, so the case could be solved in due time. Matthew, i accept you as arbitrator. --People's Commissar Hagnat [cloned] [mod] 21:56, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
Arbitration
As I seem to have been accepted by both parties on this case, I'll take it. The format of the case will be a classic BobHammero's style, allowing each of the parties an initial statement and then a rebuttal. Then I'll make a ruling unless I feel that more is required, in wich case I'll ask the parties for further statements before the ruling. Now let's start with the case.
Hagnat's case
Explain here the nature of your case against The General, presenting any evidence that pertains the case in this your initial statement.
Is this really needed ? Damn matthew, there is nothing else beyond an edit conflict between me and general. No evidence at all beyond what i have already said... the below case is useless, wasnt ruled, general ceased to contact the arbitrator to rule on it, it is here for more than 4 weeks, it should be archived! If you want you can ask general a reason not to archive it, but for me this case is this and i only wait for your ruling. --People's Commissar Hagnat [cloned] [mod] 19:16, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
The General's case
After Hagnat is done with his initial statement, insert here your defense and whatever proofs you have against his case.
Hagnat has stated that he wishes the case to be removed because it is "stupid". As I have stated before, I was waiting for a reply from terminator, and I was not notified that the case must begin, Hagnat merely stated that it was possible to begin without him. I will happily continue without him, if so wished, but I don't believe that archiving it is the right way about doing things, or a good precedent to set.--The General T Sys U! P! F! 20:35, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
Aribitrator's statement
After your initial statements are made, I'll review each of the parties evidence, inform you of that event here and then allow the rebuttals. Please be polite and don't reply to each other statements as this is not a discussion. I'll ask members of the community to be polite too and don't add replies on the case themselves, and If you feel that you need to make an statement, do it on my talk page and then I'll move it here if it has any value to the case.
After carefully reviewing the Arbitration case on Terminator 484, the evidence (or lack of evidence) presented by both Hagnat and The General and other issues pertaining the case, I'll allow rebuttals from both parties. If any of you don't see the necessity of a rebuttal, please just say so on the correspondent heading, but I'll request them anyways in order to promote fairness in this process. --Matthew Fahrenheit YRC☺T☺+1 21:21, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
Hagnat's rebuttal
Please place your rebuttal or statement that you don't need a rebuttal here.
... arbitrate already damnit! --People's Commissar Hagnat [cloned] [mod] 21:32, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
The General's rebuttal
Please place your rebuttal or statement that you don't need a rebuttal here after Hagnat does so above.
Obviously, there is nothing for me to rebut.--The General T Sys U! P! F! 21:27, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
Ruling
As I see it, there's nothing more to be said, neither it seems that I could get more information if I asked for it, so now I'll make my ruling:
Both Hagnat and The General seem to act in good faith according to their interpretations of wiki etiquette. But, as it can be clearly seen too, there are some quirks in their interpretations that I will ask to be corrected:
Hagnat, there's no case that should be deemed "stupid", and even less by a member of the moderation staff. If a case is baseless enough, try to keep the criticism over it constructive and personal statements out of the discussion ("If you dont see the pointless of this arbitration, then you are a very sad sad person general"). Cases in this wiki, wheter they are vandal or misconduct or arbitration ones, represent concerns of wiki users and should be taken and ruled upon with all the seriousness that as such they deserve. I'll admit that sometimes these concerns aren't valid enough to guarantee a case, but in such a case they should be dismissed with professional behaviour.
The General, I understand that, in a situation where everyone else on the Mod team that noticed the page in question seemed satisfied by just flame the owner on his talk page, you tried to be bold and bring a solution instead of feeding the flames. But the metod you used was inadequate for the situation at this wiki's present level of development. If in the past, aproximately as far as the first half of 2006, I would have understood the necessity of you bringing that case on arbitration, now we have a Policy discussion page, where policies can set standards of practice on any pages they pertain as long as they're approved by the community. Arbitration and precedent set by past Arbitration's rulings would not be used as a way to evade the community approval of a rule making a standard of practice being enforced as an unofficial policy, period. Arbitration should rule upon personal conflict with users and edits wars and nothing beyond that, as it was intended. So I'm sad to say that altough your intentions seemed to me to be good faith at all times, I'll have to rule somewhat against you, but anyways I expect the ruling itself not to be restrictive for you at all.
So, as my final ruling, I will ask you two or anyone of the moderation staff to move the arbitration case below (The General v. Terminator 484) back to the archive. The General, you are strongly recommended but in no way obliged to start a policy discussion concerning the max width a wiki page should take, and it most certainly would have my vote. I'll ask The General (as I would ask the community as a whole but that's something beyond my powers to do) to refrain from using the Arbitration page as a way to evade the necessity of community's approval of a policy. For the span of a month you'll be watched, and if you participate on or restart the case above mentioned or any case of similar nature as above explained instead of the correspondant policy discussion, it will be treated as a violation of this arbitration's ruling and as vandalism as it's stated on the rules of this page.
If any of you have concerns about the ruling, please bring them to my talk page. I'm more than open to change my ruling should I be shown to be in the wrong. That's all. --Matthew Fahrenheit YRC☺T☺+1 02:15, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
