UDWiki:Administration/Arbitration/DanceDanceRevolution vs Boxy

DanceDanceRevolution vs Boxy

I wish to have the removal of certain comments on the main page of A/VB, notably those shown in this diff link. Boxy doesn't want this [1] and has been in an edit war with me. I will accept arbitrators as they come but would prefer a sysop. --

 

 

 

 

12:37, 7 June 2010 (BST)

Can we agree to leave them there until this concludes? -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 12:39 7 June 2010 (BST)

Normally I'd go iscariot on your arse and force the contested edit to stay on there, but what the hey. I can wait. --

 

 

 

 

12:48, 7 June 2010 (BST)

I'll get in on this action! Put my name up there, too. I want those edits to stay - nay, I demand that they stay. So it should really be DDR v. Boxy and Jorm.--Jorm 17:32, 7 June 2010 (BST)

I don't give a shit what you think. Your only relation to the case is that you're the one that committed vandalism and as such you get no say over what appears on your own vandal case. That's the entire point of this case. --

 

 

 

 

03:23, 8 June 2010 (BST)

I'm fine with you being added to this, in fact I'd encourage it. However, you'd need to agree to abide by the ruling of whichever arbitrator is chosen, otherwise you're just wasting our time -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 08:43 8 June 2010 (BST)

Awaiting arbies, else we can start edit warring again. --

 

 

 

 

03:23, 8 June 2010 (BST)

Pick me, I already know my ruling and if you want to save an entire case and cycle this now I'm going to say this: keep the edits on the talk for the duration of the month so as to keep A/VB streamlined like we try to do, then move them to the A/VB page when it's added to the archive so Jorm always has the edits in the main case for record purposes like he's said he wants. Badda bing. 04:27, 8 June 2010 (BST)

They aren't being deleted; they are being moved. If he wants them for record purposes he can simply link to talk:A/VB. --

 

 

 

 

05:05, 8 June 2010 (BST)

Your option is a good one to satisfy both parties, so I'll consider it, but I'm still disappointed that you are all so concerned about the petty OCD requests of a vandal, particularly when we're all so quick to dismiss those of them who aren't prepared to engage in hour long edit wars for it. --

 

 

 

 

05:08, 8 June 2010 (BST)

I try to arbitrate down the middle, especially when it's a simple solution like this. Those comments will be archived forever (SA pending...) either way, so whether they're never-looked-at on the talk page, or never-looked-at on the archive page, doesn't really matter to me. 05:11, 8 June 2010 (BST)

Yep. I'm gonna accept this, since all I wanted was a third sysop's opinion on the matter and now Mis has come to give it, I'm happy to yield on whatever decision is made, for or against my own opinion. If boxy accepts this ruling I can archive this. --

 

 

 

 

05:29, 8 June 2010 (BST)

If Jorm agrees to this solution, fine, but otherwise I'll hold out to see who else may come along -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 08:43 8 June 2010 (BST)

I refuse to participate in arbitration with Jorm, as said above, it's the entire point of the case. --

 

 

 

 

09:38, 8 June 2010 (BST)

In fact, I don't really care anymore. I'm withdrawing this case. But I'm not saying sorry and I'm not saying I was wrong because I'm not- you are, and without a doubt. I just have better things to do than wait a week for this to finish over something so minor. --

 

 

 

 

09:41, 8 June 2010 (BST)