UDWiki:Administration/Arbitration/Karek vs Sockem

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

Karek Vs Sockem

Constantly striking justified votes from various Suggestions, Sockem is just out to cause drama(Check the history) and complicate the suggestions process by enforcing a rule incorrectly, a rule that wasn't voted on by the community(as can be seen here) and has rarely been enforced. So, I'd like that the votes remain unstruck, in this case they are valid votes, and possibly a requirement for the justification rule to go through the hoops every other rule has to go through by going up for vote as it does nothing but cause problems and was never actually accepted by the community.--Karek^maps?! 02:43, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

First: Rarly used =/= invalid. Second whos the Arbi? Omega 02:46, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I'll take this case if no one else will - shouldn't take long. --_Ducis ^Dux_Sloth^Talk 06:28, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Fine by me.--Karek^maps?! 06:56, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi guys. As one of the people who's votes were being deleted, I'd like to point out that (unaware of this arbi case) I reported Sockem to A/VB (as he'd requested) and a decision was made to ban him for 24 hours, and that my votes were valid. I unstruck my own votes. That's all. --Funt Solo ^QT 13:36, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I still want the case, but I'm willing to wait until he's unbanned in two days(Karlsbad did a 48 hour ban.)--Karek^maps?! 00:18, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, there was some disagreement over the whole 24/48 hour thing over on A/VB. Regarding the rules for striking votes, direct action has been taken in an attempt to reduce the potential for future conflict. --Funt Solo ^QT 14:47, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

I guess all of that means there's no reason too do this now, it's been completely settled, kinda. --Karek^maps?! 22:56, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

So we done? Omega 23:42, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Seems so, the rule has been removed, and the edits kept under an A/VB case, this all seems pointless now although I kinda would have preferred if the edits at least had been settled here instead of vandal banning.--Karek^maps?! 00:31, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Ha, this to me seems settled. I think his punishment would be the ban anyways. I hope it knocked some sense into him. --_Ducis ^Dux_Sloth^Talk 20:09, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

The edits were in good faith and you don't belong here. Omega 15:18, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Excuse me? I offered to be the arbitrator, and Karek didn't have a problem. That's the reason why I've posted here. Yes, I do belong here. --_Ducis ^Dux_Sloth^Talk 21:28, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Actually, no. This arbi case is invalid. Either Cyberbob or Funt must bring this case to me not Karek, since he has nothing to do with this case. (BTW ur comments already prove ur bias). Omega 23:01, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Meh. If you need a different arbitrator, I'll do it. --Seventythree^Talk 23:07, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

I'd like you to if this was a valid case, but it isn't. Omega 23:08, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Any user can make an Arby case against another user. They don't have to be directly involved. So it is infact a valid case.-- dǝǝɥs oʇ ɯɐds: sʎɐʍ1ɐ! 23:11, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Then I shall have no part in it. Omega 23:12, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, that's not fantasticaly useful. However, from the looks of it, I can see that it seems to have been settled. Looks like Karek actualy had your best interests at heart, as he took you to arbitration as opposed to Vandal banning.--Seventythree^Talk 23:14, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Read the rules. It says you aren't required to agree with the arbitration, but it's strongly recommended. Now, if you'd rather them make a decision without you defending yourself or anything, than by all means sit it out. But if you'd like a chance to prevent any damage being done to you in any way, than I do suggest you comply. That is, if this is still an active case of course.-- dǝǝɥs oʇ ɯɐds: sʎɐʍ1ɐ! 23:18, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

pretty sure this is over with, but just in case it's not, i'll also be willing to take the case.--'BP^Tmz 23:25, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Hey everyone that isn't Sockem or putting their hand up for arbitration, kindly fuck off. And FYI Sockem, I was involved in an edit war with you which means of all people I'm the best suited for an arbitration, especially on this case, as it's intent is too settle edit disputes not personal ones. But, ignoring all of that, there is no case, no one should have added too this after I said there's essentially no point in having this arbitration now as the matter is settled, what he did was determined Vandalism and the only thing about his case was the ban length, not the legitimacy of escalation, if that was an issue that never came up then this case has purpose, I haven't removed it because it seems some sysops seem too be saying it wasn't vandalism, I will remove it when one of them comes here and says what the final decision was in that case, if I'm right about it then I have already won this A/A case. Either way the drama input is unwanted and unneeded.--Karek^maps?! 01:23, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

May as well throw my hat into the ring. I offer to arbitrate in my own evil little way. I dont like any of you, so you dont need to worry about favouritism. --The Grimch ^{U! E! WAT!} 07:30, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

No offense Grim, but you and Boxy would be the last on the list of people I'd accept as arbitrators.--Karek^maps?! 13:17, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I think its over? Or is Karek still claimng victory over something she never had anyhting to do with in the first place. Omega 07:52, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

It's kinda over depending on what one of the willing sysops on your A/VB case says the real verdict was, if they ever actually come by here.--Karek^maps?! 13:17, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Well that went no where pretty quick. --_Ducis ^Dux_Sloth^Talk 11:21, 19 November 2007 (UTC)