UDWiki:Administration/Arbitration/Rosslessness vs Poodle of Doom

Rosslessness vs. Poodle of Doom

Poodle's senseless spamming of Kevan's talk Page with Snow requests is both pointless, and pointless.

I'd like him to stop.

As you can see Poodle is both aware of the case and willing to proceed.

[1]

I'll let poodle suggest an upstanding member of the community to arbie. --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 23:31, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

In a way, I have a vested interest, being my happiness with the game. That said, I will not agree to anyone willing to arbitrate this until I fully understand there standing on the subject. That said, I quit spamming his pages about snow. In fact, your comment was the first one about snow in three days Ross. I don't feel as if there's a need. Honestly, I considered what DDR had said the other day as a warning. Though it wasm't, personally, I took it as one. The remainder of the conversation has been about munchkins, and "Forget-Me-Sticks". On a serious note, sorry I've bothered you so much. -Estacado^Talk 23:40, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

So, you're refusing to let anyone arbitrate for you unless they've already made up their mind on the matter (and presumably done so in your favor)? That kinda defeats the purpose of hearing arguments, being fair, and making a decision based on the merit of what's said during the case, don't you think? Also, that link doesn't apply at all since you haven't been censored in the least. Specifically, that section deals with a very particular form of abuse, and for it to have happened here, Ross would have had to have removed your edits from Kevan's talk page and created an arbies case contesting those edits, with the intended (and malicious) purpose of keeping those comments stricken from Kevan's talk page for the duration of the arbies case. Here, however, Ross neither struck your existing edits, nor did he contest them (he mentions them, yes, but he's not contesting them). —Aichon— 02:28, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

If he's not contesting my posts, why is he arbitrating to keep me from commenting on the subject matter, other than to censor me in some way? -Estacado^Talk 02:39, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

You didn't answer my questions, and I'm not quite sure what your question means, but I'll try my best to answer. If he were contesting your posts, you guys likely would have been in an edit war over them and he'd be asking for their removal here as part of the case. Since neither of those have happened, those posts are not, by definition, being contested. That said, he certainly is trying to bar you from commenting on Kevan's talk page (call it "censorship" if you want, but I think that's too strong, since he's not seeking to have your old posts removed), but it's not related at all to what you linked. What you linked is about an abusive way of gaming the system to censor someone (i.e. get their existing posts removed) without them getting a chance at a fair hearing. In contrast, Ross is working entirely within both the letter and spirit of the system to accomplish his ends, and asking for someone to be barred from posting at specific places is generally acceptable. —Aichon— 03:18, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

I offer my services on the basis of deeming both a.) the reason for the arbies case and b.) the arbies case itself as a sad waste of bandwidth. Plus, one of my groups has once very, very lightly cooperated with Doodles' one. Which is probably the most affection he could hope for from any user willing to step up. -- Spiderzed▋ 23:55, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. I respectfully decline based on my reasons above. -Estacado^Talk 01:26, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

I offer to be a mean old bastard judge and conclude this quickly and decisively. 01:15, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. I respectfully decline based on my reasons above. -Estacado^Talk 01:26, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Me and ross have a long history of him telling me to take my grievances to A/A instead of A/VB. I must unironically slap him in the face and tell him that this should have been brought to A/VB as I intended for it to go, had Ross not taken this here first (which as per my last arbie shitfight with Mis, will most likely end up there somewhat in the future). -- LEMON #1 11:52, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Point. Besides If he declines all arbiters, I can always pull out the "Bad Faith Edit" card. --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 12:25, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Poodle has a long history of a love of spam, back to (as I once pointed out in a bitter argument once upon a time) his spamming of talk pages of things like Kevan and BB3 for his RIAC event, as well as recent arbie case and much crap left on many a random users talk page. You're crazy if you think you need some sort of card to convince me. -- LEMON #1 14:18, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Seeing as I'm a fairly unknown-to-most arbi, I'll offer to help out. I have a decent enough understanding of the rules, and I'll get things sorted pretty quickly. --Ash  ^{|  T  |  яя  |} 17:47, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

One question, have you ever heard of this person Ross? -Estacado^Talk 01:43, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes. Just because I haven't been the most active person around the wiki doesn't mean I don't read around it. --Ash  ^{|  T  |  яя  |} 12:56, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I could be wrong but I think you've misread Poodle's hillbilly grammar. I think it was meant to be read towards Ross as "have you ever heard of [Ashley Valentine], Ross?" as a way of somehow denoting whether Ross would be biased because he has "heard of " you. No foul to you, of course, be this the case. -- LEMON #1 14:27, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm probably more biased than I realize, but I'm willing to try my hand at calming y'all down. --VVV ^RPMBG 23:55, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Piss off shit head. -Estacado^Talk 01:43, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

If you're going to refuse all potential arbitrators, you may as well refuse arbitration. --VVV ^RPMBG 03:40, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

He can't refuse arbitration. If he does, we have to find someone to represent him. --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ ^{#nerftemplatedsigs} 03:42, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Wait, so if someone refuses arbitration, we can plop in some random guy to represent him, and then the first guy will be held to the ruling by A/VB? --VVV ^RPMBG 03:55, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

I think we're confusing A/A with the papacy again. Arbitration isn't decided with a puppet figure, but can go ahead in absentia. 04:03, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

There has been one such Arbie's case to date that one party refused and a representative was elected for him. I don't recall which case. --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ ^{#nerftemplatedsigs} 04:01, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

This seems like awful case precedent. With a puppet, your fate is essentially left to another person against your will. With an empty position, it's 100% your own fault for not defending yourself, and therefore fair. 04:03, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure a TerminalFailure arbies case had him being represented. -- LEMON #1 04:04, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't think it was TerminalFailure. I think it was someone else... --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ ^{#nerftemplatedsigs} 04:07, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Just checked. Def not TerminalFailure. 04:10, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, a puppet is not an option, but if Poodle refuses all arbitrators, the guidelines state that the administration team will assign the arbitrator, and since he must be represented according to the rules, they would likely have to assign him representation as well if he refuses to do so himself. Honestly though, I don't know why he's being so cagey about it. He actually has a decent chance at winning, assuming he puts together the proper defense. It's by no means a one-sided case, much as we might all seem to agree with Ross' sentiment regarding Poodle's action. —Aichon— 04:16, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

No, I think it's pretty one sided given Poodle's woeful cognitive record coupled of course with the case at hand, where he's obviously just being a douche and has been trying to annoy since he came back ([2] [3] [4] [5]), alongside that history of similar pointless edits and spam during his whole career on this wiki like this gem. -- LEMON #1 07:18, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Much as I agree that he's probably earned a loss here and that he likely won't mount the proper defense, I disagree that the case, taken by itself in an impartial manner (i.e. without consideration for those other actions you linked), is anything but open-and-shut in Ross' favor. That doesn't mean that I think Poodle deserves to win, mind you, just that I think Ross doesn't exactly have a strong case for barring Poodle from the page (though, if I were to bet, it'd be on Ross winning). Ask yourself: if it were anyone besides Poodle who had done what he did, would it be seen as one-sided? Anyway, I'm not gonna debate it any further, since I have no intention of handing either side their arguments on a platter, but I don't think it's so simple. —Aichon— 07:45, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

TBH, I think I would come to that conclusion. Maybe I'm so blinded that I can't see self assessed bias, but I'd still think that anyone being a prick on Poodle's current level would have an A/A (again if I had logged on before ross it'd be A/VB) case without any doubt with the result for sure. -- LEMON #1 14:24, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

To be honest, he got the response he did because of our previous relationship in our former group. Him and I have had problems there too.... Just so you know why I passed on him. -Estacado^Talk 23:18, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

You can't deny arbitration or someone else will be chosen to represent you. It has always been this way and I have been personally forced into arbitration by this logic before by certain sysosps. The (somewhat logically) reason is once you can deny arbitration it becomes pointless since you can't solve any issue with users like Poodle of Fool and we might as well handle everything through A/VB. --(Thad)eous Oakley ^Talk 09:47, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

I still haven't been denied! --Ash  ^{|  T  |  яя  |} 12:56, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm not much of a fan of arbies, but I've been out of the loop just long enough that I haven't actually seen this conflict at all (I only just learned there was a case here). I'd like to volunteer to arbitrate based on that. However, in a way, I already feel pretty decided on it. If the posts on Kevan's talk amounted to spam, they should be dealt with via VB rather than Arbies, and if they weren't spam, then no user should be prevented from contacting the game's manager. Ultimately, if you selected me as arbitrator, that would be the point to argue on. But, as I say, this would be far more suitable as a VB case, whether or not Poodle is found guilty of vandalism or not.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 13:55, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

A/VB, fuckin a' brother. -- LEMON #1 14:24, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Not sure if this stands or not, but I'd just like to reaffirm myself as wanting to Arbitrate. I'm completely neutral in the matter, have a good idea of policy and no previous judgement. Sure enough, it'd be my first case, but at least that means I won't jump on a decision and stick with it. Just an idea, y'know. --Ash  ^{|  T  |  яя  |} 14:15, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Bahaha, I guess that one rules me out of the running. Whoops. --Ash  ^{|  T  |  яя  |} 14:28, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Not at all. You can actually correct that, if you'd like. People routinely forget their signatures and then just add them back in later once they're reminded. —Aichon— 15:21, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

What forgotten Sig? ... Thanks :) --Ash  ^{|  T  |  яя  |} 15:29, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

I offer my services to Arbitrate. I understand where both partys are coming at in this case and swear I will be both hounrable and un-biased--^TCAPD(╯°□°)╯ ┻━┻ 17:38, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

It would seem the community opinion is that this is a case for A/VB and not A/A. As such, and with Poodle stopping the senseless spamming of Kevan;s talk page, consider this case Withdrawn. --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 17:40, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Acutally, I'm not direly apposed to having it continue. Do you know DevilAsh? If not, I'd be willing to accept them, or Michalson. Either or... Your choice. And in my defense, I'd like to point out what Aichon said. People seem rather dead set against me, regardless of what side I'm on. I could choose to be on the same side as everyone else, but I'd still be wrong. I'm trying to pick someone whose not had the oppertunity to get to know either of us to avoid potiential bias. At that, A/A is like a trial, with the arbitrator being a jury. You wouldn't have me select a jury with bias in favor of you, would you? Dumb question, really. If you were given the oppertunity, perhaps. None the less, I'm looking for someone I consider to be fair, unbias, and who wouldn't be into ass-kissery of the current moderating team. -Estacado^Talk 23:15, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Actually, it's less like a trial and more like arbitration, with the arbitrator being the arbitrator.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 23:02, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Well,... boo. -Estacado^Talk 23:08, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

For those of you looking back on this from the future, the issue was continued here. --VVV ^RPMBG 23:04, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

And continued above, by the looks of it. --Ash  ^{|  T  |  яя  |} 18:14, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Ultimately, I'll leave it up to Ross. But I just wanted him to know that I'm not trying to refuse arbitration, like most people assumed. -Estacado^Talk 23:00, 10 December 2010 (UTC)