UDWiki:Administration/Arbitration/Suicidalangel vs MisterGame

Proceedings

Please make your full case below, don't assume that I should know any of the relevant information. If it's relevant, go into the history of your disagreement. Please provide links to the pages in question, preferably diff comparisons of the edits in question -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 00:01 10 June 2009 (BST)

SA's opening case

Wants - For Thadeous Oakley to be barred from editing anything in my namespace, including talk pages. And for him to use the A/VB talk page unless he's bringing evidence, or is an involved party. This includes debating, or talking to other users. If other users post on the main page, it doesn't mean he can, it means he takes their edits tot he talk page and replies to them there.

Reason - Simply put, it's my right as a user to have someone barred from editing my talk pages for disagreement issues. As evidence from this version of my talk page, he shows his disregard for other peoples rules on talk pages, along with overall just causing a commotion on talk pages. He later shows his inability to use proper formatting on my talk page when I put a ban on blinking things (Not just to be a dick mind you. I have a head problem that acts up every once in awhile, and the blink is giving me a worse migraine than usual), by failing to either correctly make a link to his page in some way, or not time stamping it.

After that mess was settled down, he goes to the administration page and makes this edit. That edit made it look like I was ruling on a vandalism case that I feel I would not be able to, being that I was involved. It's misconductable for me to do so, and for him to make an edit like that was, while good faith, a problem. I told him after that edit, for him not to edit the main page of any A/VB cases because A)He should be using the talk page as it is, and B)He's messed up big time in my eyes. Simple.

The next issue is when he puts blatant shit on A/VB with this edit. So when I clear it as blatant trolling on a case he is not involved in anyway, which I believe as sysops we can do, he reverts it back. Initially he did not try to make his comment more acceptable, he just jumps on the revert button, like any angry user tends to do. When I move his comments to the talk page, he come to my page and complains. Sure, alright. You'd think he'd remember to follow the no-blink rule. Does he? No. He then tries to fix it, and in the process messes up the coding (Although slightly) of my page, and messes up his own signature.

He has a small problem with rules in general, I don't wan to associate myself with him anymore unless necessary.

What would be considered necessary for me to interact with him in my opinion is:

1. Him either being the subject of, or bringing a case to A/VB, because unless he really bones up formatting or something, I have no real excuse to move his comments.
2. Him bringing a request to another part of the admin section
3. Him messing up formatting on another page not explicitly involved with him (Say he messes up another users talk page, and I fix it), which will simply require the modification of the comment to where the original text is there, but the problem fixed.
4. Him messing up something admin related (For example, his edit to A/VB that made me look like I was ruling), as it could potentially harm me.
5. Him making a comment on an admin page, or it's talk.

What I would not be allowed to do:

1. Post upon Mistergame's talk page, or any other page in his namespace. Anything I have to say can go on the talk page of the controversial page, or the necessary admin page/admin talkpage if his behavior is disruptive, or I question his requests.
2. Move his posts unless it explicitly breaks the formatting of another page or another user's rules. This one shouldn't happen very often.

Summary:

1. I cannot post on his pages, nor him on mine
2. I will have limited contact with him on pages that are not his or mine, in the ways stated above. If there is anything conflicting in what I have stated, or other errors, it is because I am tired. :(

If I find something to add, I will make an addendum, though that should be everything.

--Mr. Angel, Help needed? 02:07, 10 June 2009 (BST)

Keeping it moving

Also, I'd really appreciate it if he, you know, didn't ignore this case. I mean, for someone who has made 60+ edits since the case procedure was made, and since he edited this page itself to fix his name, it's taking quite some time for him to write something.--Mr. Angel, Help needed? 16:50, 11 June 2009 (BST)

I'm busy. I'm lazy. This is going rather unwillingly. I'll get something up by tomorrow.--Thadeous Oakley 16:58, 11 June 2009 (BST)

Note: I hate deadlines.--Thadeous Oakley 22:02, 12 June 2009 (BST)

OK, just to make sure this keeps moving, and give you a little incentive, I'll make an interim ruling, that neither of you edit the other's talk page until this case is finalised (this doesn't include official sysop messages like warnings, although I would suggest that SA let others handle it if it does come up) -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 23:32 11 June 2009 (BST)

I will comply with this temporary ruling,--Mr. Angel, Help needed? 00:18, 12 June 2009 (BST)

I'll comply. I think we were already doing this a bit.--Thadeous Oakley 22:02, 12 June 2009 (BST)

If you want to voluntarily stop editing his pages, and agree not to mess with admin cases that he's involved in (where you arn't an involved party yourself) for a few months, we can just make this go away pretty quickly -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 11:13 13 June 2009 (BST)

So what do you plan on doing Monsieur Cube should he ignore this case?--Mr. Angel, Help needed? 04:28, 15 June 2009 (BST)

I'll give him a few days yet, and as long as there is no conflict happening, there shouldn't be any great rush, yeah? After that, I'll make a ruling as best I can -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 13:20 15 June 2009 (BST)

He's treating the case like a joke mr. box man. Can you please just finish the case, since he obviously would like to make things difficult.--Mr. Angel, Help needed? 00:16, 21 June 2009 (BST)

It's just dumb. I should always be able to contact whoever does what whatever action to my edits :/--Thadeous Oakley 10:11, 21 June 2009 (BST)

And that's a reasonable thing to bring up, and it will be taken into account -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 12:40 21 June 2009 (BST)

Which is also why I said I'd leave his edits alone, as long as they aren't page-breaking or fucking some one over (like he did to me on A/VB).--Mr. Angel, Help needed? 21:10, 21 June 2009 (BST)

MG's defense

-->Talk page -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 12:50 21 June 2009 (BST)

Ruling

OK, we've got a clash of personalities here, and the separation that you've maintained throughout this case seems to have settled things down quite well, so I'm going to rule that the it is continued for a time.

• - No editing of each others User: pages (including talk and sub pages), excluding admin notices which should remain entirely "professional" (ie. no added, derogatory commentary).
• - No editing of each others comments on pages, including other people's talk pages, except something that seriously breaks the wiki.
• - No enforcing other people's talk page rules (unless specifically given such rights by the user who owns the talk page) in regard to each other.
• - MisterGame is not to contribute to admin pages that don't ask for community input unless he is an involved party (the talk pages are still open to comment though). Admin pages such as A/D ask for community input (votes), while A/VB is discussed by sysops and involved parties only (reporting an A/VB case counts as being involved).

The above rulings will apply until the end of July, after which they are relaxed. If, however, either party feels that the aggravation is starting again after that time, they may post on the talk page, and my talk page, requesting an extension until the end of the year under the same rules, and the case will be reevaluated -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 14:45 22 June 2009 (BST)

The ruling has been extended until the end of the year -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 12:02 8 July 2009 (BST)

Well at least I chose an good arbitrator...Fine, I'll accept your ruling Boxy.--Thadeous Oakley 23:08, 22 June 2009 (BST)

I do not agree with the temporary status of the prohibition of communication. The purpose of this case was to prevent any dealings with him unless it's absolutely necessary, permanently. Your ruling defeats the ultimate purpose of starting this. Requesting an extension? Why should I have to tolerate him annoying me at a later date? "Settled down" or not, I don't want to give him the chance to get things flared up again. Especially after his bad-faith actions in "participating" in this case (I.E. speaking in a non-English language to cause annoyance and his overall lack of participation). I do not believe he will be able to remain mature in any future dealings with me, fuck, he couldn't even act mature here.--Mr. Angel, Help needed? 03:17, 24 June 2009 (BST)

It will take a lot less that his idiocy the other day, on this page, to get me to extend this to the full 6+ months, but I just don't believe that such rulings should ever be made permanent. 6 months is a long time on the internets, and while seldom do people change all that much, they do get over petty stuff. Leaving an open ended ruling here would mean that if you both did get over it, and forgot about your past (hey, I can dream) then you would be open to an immediate ban if you honestly started posting on his talk page in a year and a half, or two years time -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 06:38 24 June 2009 (BST)

Fuck this has taken a long time to get up here. Anywho. I am still not accpeting your ruling based on the fact that it's my damn user page and user rights should not be ignored. A user has no right to speak to another user, yet a user does have the right to ban any person they want from their page. forcing them to go to arbitration is horse shit, because you get cases like this where the user does not want to ever have to deal with a specific user again, yet the arbitrator doesn't feel that a permanent barring should be done. It shouldn't be up to another base user (Because in this case you're not a sysops, just another user) to decide what rights another user gets, and you shouldn't be trying to restrict my rights. I am not worried about forgetting this ruling and getting banned in the future for posting on his page because I don't plan to associate with him unless absolutely necessary, as I've already stated. What I don't understand is that when it's my right, I'm stuck with knowing that I could quite easily have to deal with him again when I don't want to. I don't plan on associating with him, yet he's immature enough to where I can't honestly expect him not to start annoying me at a later date.--Mr. Angel, Help needed? 03:15, 6 July 2009 (BST)

Does his latest vandal case and subsequent ban convince you that a perma ban from my page right now isn't that uncalled for?--Mr. Angel, Help needed? 06:23, 8 July 2009 (BST)

While it was a clear violation of the ruling that he agreed to abide by, in that he posted on an A/VB case that didn't involve him (and hence a legitimate warning), it didn't involve you, so I don't see how it relates to your talk page at all. You seem to take every fuck up this idiot does as some sort of personal insult to you. If you cant handle his total cluelessness, then let others deal with it.

However, given that he's already broken this ruling, I am invoking the extension clause. The ruling is now extended until the end of the year.

And just so you both know, continued troll type contributions to each others talk pages, after this ruling expires, are much more likely to be viewed as vandalism (depending on the circumstance at the time) due to the existence of this case. Obvious harassment where there is a clear history has been ruled vandalism in the past -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 12:02 8 July 2009 (BST)

I'm not taking it all as an insult, just more reason why I'd never want him on my page again. You say I should just let others deal with it, but should he come to my page, then it's my problem again. Anywho, I'm fine with extending it to the end of the year, I just didn't think the original short ruling would honestly be long enough. Case close, archive naow.--Mr. Angel, Help needed? 16:55, 8 July 2009 (BST)

-->Talk page - xoxo _{16:55, 24 June 2009 (BST)}