UDWiki:Administration/Arbitration/Pdeq vs Funt Solo
Administration Services — Protection. This page has been protected against editing. See the archive of recent actions or the Protections log. |
Pdeq vs. Funt Solo
In regards to this suggestion. I believe it was unfairly duped (as did several other people). It could not be resolved on the suggestion's talk page. --PdeqTalk* 00:37, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
I won't be on the wiki for approximately 24 hours, so will reply to any offers of arbitrator when I get back. --Funt Solo QT 00:48, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
I offer to arbitrate. -- Iscariot 01:27, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
- That'd be fine. If Funt doesn't want you, then hopefully someone else will offer. I'll check back tomorrow. --PdeqTalk* 05:27, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
- I decline Iscariot on the grounds that he's an idiot. I have evidence, if anyone wants to see it. Also, I'm waiting to hear back from Pdeq about whether he wants to pursue this given that the suggestion has been reinstated simply because of the existence of this arbitration case. --Funt Solo QT 14:28, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
- In the face of Funt's wiki lawyering I highly suggest that Pdeq take plenty of time to consider his choice of arbitrator. 14 days should be enough... -- Iscariot 17:35, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
- I decline Iscariot on the grounds that he's an idiot. I have evidence, if anyone wants to see it. Also, I'm waiting to hear back from Pdeq about whether he wants to pursue this given that the suggestion has been reinstated simply because of the existence of this arbitration case. --Funt Solo QT 14:28, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
No point in arbitrating, Funt's basically already won if anyone is gonna let him get away with the day away crap, it means he's removed it from Current Suggestions without any real basis for duping it, or defending his basis for duping it.--Karekmaps?! 01:55, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
Just pointing out that it's actually a dupe... but allow me to remind you guys that the page must be kept the way it was before a controversial edit... this means that the page can return to the list of current suggestions until ruled otherwise, either by this arbitration case, because it's a day old, or because it reached the right ammount of dupe voted required to remove it. --People's Commissar Hagnat [cloned] [mod] 02:06, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
It looks dupish to me too, the only difference I can see is one costs 5AP, the other 1. -- AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 02:14, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
- Wrong suggestion... looks valid enough to me. -- AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 02:20, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
- Isn't that what arbitration is for? To decide if it is a dupe or not? And it isn't a dupe at all. The other one clearly states the zombie is leaving. This one compares opening the door to "attacking" the door. You know, in the game Urban Dead* when you are taking over a building and you beat down the barricades the last "attack" on the barricade is ENTER BUILDING - which means that you open the door. If you are inside a building and attacking the barricades the last "attack" should be OPEN DOOR. Since zombies can beat on barricades they should be able to open the door from the inside and STAY inside. That isn't what the FIRST or "dupe" is saying. It is saying the zombie leaves. That means the zombie is exiting the building and not staying inside the building. There is a difference between INSIDE and OUTSIDE. *not sure if any of the mods actually play anymore with all the vandals running around undotting i's and uncrossing t's on the wiki. --DCC 02:15, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
As the suggestion has no longer been removed as a Dupe, by me, then this arbitration case no longer makes any sense. I declare it null and void. --Funt Solo QT 09:01, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
Well I was going to offer to arbitrate this but it seems to be settled? Its a shame really as a definitive ruling may have helped clarify things for the future! --Honestmistake 10:36, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
- I think the correct place for such a ruling would be a policy discussion. Or I could take out an arbitration case against Pdeq - except that I don't feel that strongly about it. What is interesting to note is this: if I (or anyone else) disagrees with anyone removing a suggestion as a Dupe, then all I need do is start an arbi case in order to have it put immediately back into voting, at which point the arbi case automatically becomes null and void, except the suggestion is now bullet-proofed against dupe removal by anyone, because that would be vandalism against the arbi case. This case has set an interesting precedent. --Funt Solo QT 11:27, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
- *BEEP* Wrong. First, if anyone points to an actual dupe of the suggestion (i didnt manage to find the actual dupe of that suggestion, which what you links to is not) that suggestion can be indeed duped. Second, users found to be abusing their rights are threated as vandals... if a user starts arbyes everytime a suggestion of his is deemed dupe/spam, he will be punished. Third, any other user can dupe the suggestion. The merit of this arby is that you wrongly duped the suggestion. And finally, If you can solve this arbitration in your favor before the 14 days of life that suggestion has in the current suggestions category, then you can dupe it again, this time with the blessing of an arby ruling. Now, you either proceed with this case, or stop whining and admit that you were wrong. --People's Commissar Hagnat [cloned] [mod] 11:47, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
- Hagnat, you're just making shit up as you go along. Firstly, you're not an arbitrator on this case, so your input is meaningless. Secondly, where did you get the part about "the page must be kept the way it was before a controversial edit". Is that written in a policy somewhere or did you just pull it out of your arse? I pointed to what I considered to be a Dupe - in good faith - your opinion that it isn't a Dupe is just that, an opinion, and not a fact: so don't treat it like a fact. Now, this case was brought because Pdeq disagreed with the removal of the suggestion. Now, it's not been removed. Where's the case? Unless you have clear policy, with links, and clear precedence, with links - then all you are is a janitor with an opinion. So, YOU stop whining and fuck off unless you're chosen as an arbitrator. I'm going to wait to see if Pdeq thinks this is worth continuing with or not. --Funt Solo QT 11:52, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
- gotta love precent, about keeping controversial edits the way they where :D And, oh funt, i expected more from someone who edits the Mod Conspiracy... this was even reported there. --People's Commissar Hagnat [cloned] [mod] 12:18, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
- Fair enough on that one point: I notice that you've ignored all my others, and that you're still assuming bad faith on my part. I expected more of you. And I still think it's a Dupe - but if you want to clog up PR with dupes, knock yourself out. --Funt Solo QT 14:12, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
- I didnt ignored them... i agreed with it and decided not to comment further. My opinion was that it's not a dupe, and that's it. The same thing can also be applied to your opinion on it being a dupe. And where did i said you acted in bad faith ? Editing wrong is not the same as editing in bad faith. Don't put words in my mouth, kiddo. --People's Commissar Hagnat [cloned] [mod] 14:23, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
- I guess I got confused because you kept mentioning "vandals" and "punishment", kiddo. --Funt Solo QT 14:34, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
- If it fits the hat... but have you abused your rights ? Answer that the wrong way and you might get a vandal report as a reward :D --People's Commissar Hagnat [cloned] [mod] 14:47, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
- I followed clear precedent on Dupe removals. It had three Dupe votes (four, if you include my one), and what I considered a valid link, and thus I removed it - as has been done countless times in the past by me and others, and it has never been called vandalism. If you want to call me out as a vandal for that, hagnat, go right ahead. I can see your true colours now. --Funt Solo QT 14:51, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
- Nice explanation, and i agree totally with it... but that doesnt answer my question: have you abused your rights ? (yes/no) --People's Commissar Hagnat [cloned] [mod] 14:58, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
- I've already stated several times that I acted in good faith. You're just trolling now. --Funt Solo QT 15:14, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
- So, if you didnt abused your rights, you werent acting in bad faith, ergo, you had nothing to fear as i said only those whom abused their rights would be punished. There was no need to take offensive or defensive stances by my above comments, as they were not directed at you, but for those who would start an arby case every time one of his suggestions got spammed/duped. And yes, i was trolling you... but only because you tried to make me look like a fool, when the only fool was you. --People's Commissar Hagnat [cloned] [mod] 16:51, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
- I've already stated several times that I acted in good faith. You're just trolling now. --Funt Solo QT 15:14, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
- Nice explanation, and i agree totally with it... but that doesnt answer my question: have you abused your rights ? (yes/no) --People's Commissar Hagnat [cloned] [mod] 14:58, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
- I followed clear precedent on Dupe removals. It had three Dupe votes (four, if you include my one), and what I considered a valid link, and thus I removed it - as has been done countless times in the past by me and others, and it has never been called vandalism. If you want to call me out as a vandal for that, hagnat, go right ahead. I can see your true colours now. --Funt Solo QT 14:51, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
- If it fits the hat... but have you abused your rights ? Answer that the wrong way and you might get a vandal report as a reward :D --People's Commissar Hagnat [cloned] [mod] 14:47, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
- I guess I got confused because you kept mentioning "vandals" and "punishment", kiddo. --Funt Solo QT 14:34, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
- I didnt ignored them... i agreed with it and decided not to comment further. My opinion was that it's not a dupe, and that's it. The same thing can also be applied to your opinion on it being a dupe. And where did i said you acted in bad faith ? Editing wrong is not the same as editing in bad faith. Don't put words in my mouth, kiddo. --People's Commissar Hagnat [cloned] [mod] 14:23, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
- Fair enough on that one point: I notice that you've ignored all my others, and that you're still assuming bad faith on my part. I expected more of you. And I still think it's a Dupe - but if you want to clog up PR with dupes, knock yourself out. --Funt Solo QT 14:12, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
- gotta love precent, about keeping controversial edits the way they where :D And, oh funt, i expected more from someone who edits the Mod Conspiracy... this was even reported there. --People's Commissar Hagnat [cloned] [mod] 12:18, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
- Hagnat, you're just making shit up as you go along. Firstly, you're not an arbitrator on this case, so your input is meaningless. Secondly, where did you get the part about "the page must be kept the way it was before a controversial edit". Is that written in a policy somewhere or did you just pull it out of your arse? I pointed to what I considered to be a Dupe - in good faith - your opinion that it isn't a Dupe is just that, an opinion, and not a fact: so don't treat it like a fact. Now, this case was brought because Pdeq disagreed with the removal of the suggestion. Now, it's not been removed. Where's the case? Unless you have clear policy, with links, and clear precedence, with links - then all you are is a janitor with an opinion. So, YOU stop whining and fuck off unless you're chosen as an arbitrator. I'm going to wait to see if Pdeq thinks this is worth continuing with or not. --Funt Solo QT 11:52, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
- *BEEP* Wrong. First, if anyone points to an actual dupe of the suggestion (i didnt manage to find the actual dupe of that suggestion, which what you links to is not) that suggestion can be indeed duped. Second, users found to be abusing their rights are threated as vandals... if a user starts arbyes everytime a suggestion of his is deemed dupe/spam, he will be punished. Third, any other user can dupe the suggestion. The merit of this arby is that you wrongly duped the suggestion. And finally, If you can solve this arbitration in your favor before the 14 days of life that suggestion has in the current suggestions category, then you can dupe it again, this time with the blessing of an arby ruling. Now, you either proceed with this case, or stop whining and admit that you were wrong. --People's Commissar Hagnat [cloned] [mod] 11:47, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
- By the way, neither you nor Karek should be giving me a hard time over this. I KNOW both of you have done similar controversial edits (ie where other people don't agree with your opinion) in the past. And, you'll also note, I hope, that I'm not spitting the dummy on this: I've not entered into an edit war, or a shouting match with Pdeq. In fact, it was all relatively calm until you waded in here with your patronising bullshit. I don't give a fuck if the suggestion stays (and thus clutters up the peer reviewed with repetitive bullshit) or goes - I genuinely was just trying to help manage the suggestions system. You want what from this, hagnat? Blood? Tears? Stop shit-stirring and crawl back under your rock. --Funt Solo QT 11:57, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
- I can only see one reason why you would give a damn about it being put back in rotation until the conclusion of this case, and that's the exact reason why I "gave you shit" about removing it, letting a case be filed, and then mysteriously vanishing for a day. It was you trying to abuse the system to get a suggestion you don't like for whatever reason off of Current Suggestions for it's period of, and this is a bit surprising I know, 24 hours, that is normally when/where suggestions get the most votes out of the whole two weeks they are open for voting. It's you trying to prevent people from voting. It can still be dupe removed early, all it takes is you settling the Edit Conflict. I have money on you not wanting to for the same reason I believe you started the VB/Misconduct case against me not too long ago, you don't like it when the rules/system apply to you only when they apply to others, and then only when they apply exactly how you feel like interpreting them.--Karekmaps?! 13:12, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
- And it may have been calm but only because you felt like taking liberties with people who didn't know what they were allowed to do in response, you got your way because they didn't know you were doing things the wrong way.--Karekmaps?! 13:12, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
- Karek, everything you've just said about my motives falls apart when you see that I didn't get "my way" - that is, the suggestion wasn't removed as a Dupe, and I don't particularly care. I was following Dupe-precedent, that's all. Someone felt strongly enough to take it here, and so the dupe was over-turned until the completion of this case. Fine. That's what arbitration is here for, I suppose. And, if you recall, when I took you to Misconduct, and it was decided that it was not Misconduct, I didn't kick up a fuss, I accepted the decision. That's what these systems are for - and I don't understand why I'm given a hard time for using them. (Especially when, in this case, I didn't start up the arbitration case: I was taken here by someone else. How could I have planned all of that?) As for the 24 hours: it was past midnight and I was going to bed, and I had appointments this morning. You're seeing things that aren't there because you have a personal enmity towards me. --Funt Solo QT 14:12, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
- And this little hissy fit you've thrown over it being put back into voting circulation? Somehow you missed explaining that one.--Karekmaps?! 14:55, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
- Meh - now you're just trolling. What I call an explanation, you call a hissy fit. --Funt Solo QT 15:11, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
- No Funt, I call this a hissy fit, I call this a hissy fit. That's not an explanation Funt, those are you throwing a fit and bitching because the suggestion is under voting pending the resolution of this arbitration case. Oh and fail troll is fail.--Karekmaps?! 15:24, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
- I don't care if everyone wants to vote for it, but that doesn't mean I'm going to switch my brain off and suddenly agree that it's not a dupe when I know full well that it is. Honestly, Karek - if you can't see how much you're slavering and chasing me around here to try and enact some kind of vengeance over your prior shitty behaviour, then you're blind, and I can't help you. Is there even a reason you're on this page? Hagnat, at least, had a point of precedence to report before he started ranting and acting like God, but all you've got is personal attacks and paranoia. Go and do something useful for the wiki. --Funt Solo QT 15:40, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
- Totally, Vengance, that's what I'm after. You are seriously fucking deluded, do you just seem my sig and think "Oh shit it's an attempt to fuck me" or do you actually read it and then change it to that shit in your head? By the way you still have yet to mention why it's such a big deal that the suggestion is up for voting until you solve this dispute and, until you do, the only explanation that makes any sense(as you're a somewhat competent user) is that you were trying to keep people from voting on it.--Karekmaps?! 16:01, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
- Fuck, you really are just a troll, aren't you? I've stated several times now: I don't care if this suggestion goes through voting. It's not a big deal to me. (It would mean less clutter, because it's a Dupe, if it was removed as a Dupe, but if the community wants clutter - let it have clutter!) It's you that keeps saying it's a big deal. Now, what was the good of you being here, again? It wasn't to get a reaction, was it? Right - you got one. Now, what else do you want? More? How much attention does diddums need ? --Funt Solo QT 16:10, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
- Totally, Vengance, that's what I'm after. You are seriously fucking deluded, do you just seem my sig and think "Oh shit it's an attempt to fuck me" or do you actually read it and then change it to that shit in your head? By the way you still have yet to mention why it's such a big deal that the suggestion is up for voting until you solve this dispute and, until you do, the only explanation that makes any sense(as you're a somewhat competent user) is that you were trying to keep people from voting on it.--Karekmaps?! 16:01, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
- I don't care if everyone wants to vote for it, but that doesn't mean I'm going to switch my brain off and suddenly agree that it's not a dupe when I know full well that it is. Honestly, Karek - if you can't see how much you're slavering and chasing me around here to try and enact some kind of vengeance over your prior shitty behaviour, then you're blind, and I can't help you. Is there even a reason you're on this page? Hagnat, at least, had a point of precedence to report before he started ranting and acting like God, but all you've got is personal attacks and paranoia. Go and do something useful for the wiki. --Funt Solo QT 15:40, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
- No Funt, I call this a hissy fit, I call this a hissy fit. That's not an explanation Funt, those are you throwing a fit and bitching because the suggestion is under voting pending the resolution of this arbitration case. Oh and fail troll is fail.--Karekmaps?! 15:24, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
- Meh - now you're just trolling. What I call an explanation, you call a hissy fit. --Funt Solo QT 15:11, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
- And this little hissy fit you've thrown over it being put back into voting circulation? Somehow you missed explaining that one.--Karekmaps?! 14:55, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
- Karek, everything you've just said about my motives falls apart when you see that I didn't get "my way" - that is, the suggestion wasn't removed as a Dupe, and I don't particularly care. I was following Dupe-precedent, that's all. Someone felt strongly enough to take it here, and so the dupe was over-turned until the completion of this case. Fine. That's what arbitration is here for, I suppose. And, if you recall, when I took you to Misconduct, and it was decided that it was not Misconduct, I didn't kick up a fuss, I accepted the decision. That's what these systems are for - and I don't understand why I'm given a hard time for using them. (Especially when, in this case, I didn't start up the arbitration case: I was taken here by someone else. How could I have planned all of that?) As for the 24 hours: it was past midnight and I was going to bed, and I had appointments this morning. You're seeing things that aren't there because you have a personal enmity towards me. --Funt Solo QT 14:12, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
- By the way, neither you nor Karek should be giving me a hard time over this. I KNOW both of you have done similar controversial edits (ie where other people don't agree with your opinion) in the past. And, you'll also note, I hope, that I'm not spitting the dummy on this: I've not entered into an edit war, or a shouting match with Pdeq. In fact, it was all relatively calm until you waded in here with your patronising bullshit. I don't give a fuck if the suggestion stays (and thus clutters up the peer reviewed with repetitive bullshit) or goes - I genuinely was just trying to help manage the suggestions system. You want what from this, hagnat? Blood? Tears? Stop shit-stirring and crawl back under your rock. --Funt Solo QT 11:57, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
- I decline HonestMistake for the moment on the grounds that I'm waiting to hear back from Pdeq about whether he wants to pursue this arbitration case given that the suggestion has been reinstated simply because of the existence of this arbitration case, making the fact that I removed it as a Dupe rather irrelevant. --Funt Solo QT 14:28, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
- If you guys decide to go for this, then I'm willing to arbitrate. --SeventythreeTalk 16:28, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
My understanding is that the reinstatement of the suggestion into the voting system is only temporary, while this arbitration case is being settled. Hence, were I to drop this, it would again be duped, if I understand correctly. Therefore, I am continuing the arbitration case and will accept 73, or Honestmistake as arbitrators, with no preference of one over the other. --PdeqTalk* 18:47, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
- Let me state quite clearly that I believe the suggestion to be a Dupe, in that the concept is already clearly represented in Peer Reviewed. However, I also recognise that the majority of the community wish to Keep the suggestion, whether they believe it to be a Dupe or not. Therefore, I recuse myself from any more dealings with the suggestion. Given that I have just provided, in effect, an iron-clad promise not to remove the suggestion as a Dupe, and it is currently in voting, I see no point in going ahead with this arbitration case, as it can serve no purpose, as you and I no longer have a conflict of interests. Note: I am not refusing to take part in arbitration: I'm simply asking you to join me in dropping the case. --Funt Solo QT 19:17, 6 March 2008 (UTC)