UDWiki talk:Administration/Arbitration/Iscariot vs Boxy

Possible point

Not willing to go and check exactly the edits I do want to point out that as a result of this Vandal banning case (quoted in its entirety) that Edits may be done on ANY group (member or not) as long as the edits are accurate.

User:JonnyFive JonnyFive (talk | contribs | logs | block | IP Check | vndl data | discuss)
For this edit. Accurate or not, Its up to a group member to do the editing. Conndraka^{mod TDHPD CFT} 18:59, 27 April 2008 (BST)

Not vandalism - Good faith, it improved the accuracy of the paragraph. The edit was accurate to what the stats said at that time, and the paragraph was talking about the stats page, not about known members who may not have the exact words "Dunell Hills Police Department" in their profile. --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 01:33, 28 April 2008 (BST)

Not vandalism - Read the reporting guidelines, please. "Avoid submitting reports which are petty." --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{[cloned] [mod]} 13:03, 28 April 2008 (BST)

Allright. Its just that I thought that the fact that since the edit in question was not in the NPOV section and that Johny is a member of a group known to Grief the DHPD, that it was innapropriate. I assume this means that anyone can now edit any group page as long as the edit is accurate? Conndraka^{mod TDHPD CFT} 15:28, 28 April 2008 (BST)

Edit in the means of adding new info, no. Update already existing, yet outdated, information from a reliable source, yes. You could've prevented that by simply saying as of (day) of (month), the DHPD yada yada --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{[cloned] [mod]} 15:37, 28 April 2008 (BST)

If the minor editing of the group page continues in a way that I think can be considered to be for annoyance value, then yeah, it may be ruled as vandalism... but not simply this -- boxy ^{talk • i} 03:24 29 April 2008 (BST)

Conndraka^{mod TAZM CFT} 01:32, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

---

Imagine me laughing for five stright minutes, no really! This comedy you bring here is good enough to win awards.

You bring a case where the actual edit is lost due to the history purge and where the case is not detailed enough to judge the accuracy of your comments. You bring a case where both of the judges are the two most incompetent sysops to vote on A/VB in recent memory. You bring a case, because we all know you have no issue with me or underlying agenda....

So we have:

1. No evidence (lost to the history purge)
2. One judge known for voting not vandalism on everything except ninja mind control via the wiki (Gnome)
3. One judge known for making shit up randomly and voting according to his personal whim (Hagnat)
4. Yourself, someone desperate to finally deliver retribution on me for some imagined slight after your last attempt at venting your impotent rage fell apart and you were laughed out of arbitration

In closing, you are a joke and your feeble one dimensional attempt at petty revenge will not fly here. Go back to ranting on A/VB you incompetent, biased, failed abortion. Alternately, turn off your computer, go into the real world and do something that will remove you from my gene pool. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 05:34, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

I do recall that case, the edit was exactly as the case suggests, the updating of a number off the stats page. And boxy did agree with the sentiments and except that a ruling was already made as good as ruled it not vandalism. Just thought i should point out those 2 minor points.--xoxo 05:38, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Prove it. You are a sysop commenting on a case involving me. Your testimony is inherently suspect due to your position. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 06:07, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

If that guy had posted on your group page, Conn, to tell y'all that you were "pathetic bastards" that suck, he would have got a warning in 5 minutes flat. The fact of the case is that he made a constructive edit, updating the group numbers from a reliable source without being insulting, or taking over your page. He simply updated information that you had already placed there. It has absolutely nothing to do with this at all -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 05:45 24 December 2008 (BST)

Unless you think that this case actually supports my right to make constructive edits, which isn't actually in question. Rather it's about the nature of the edits (whether my edits were constructive or not) themselves -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 05:47 24 December 2008 (BST)

What this is about is the actions of a petty and biased impression of a human being in trying to influence an arbitration case that I'm involved in because he lacked the intellectual acumen to engage me directly. Also, I'm your opponent, do not try to influence my case by trying to tell me what is or is not in question in this case. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 06:05, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes Boxy that was what I was trying to do. And Iscariot, Im not the one who is the worthless waste of humanity in an otherwise enjoyable community. Cheers. Conndraka^{mod TAZM CFT} 06:47, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

o.0 You mean it isn't me?--Karek^maps?! 01:21, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Nah... You, I disagree with, and have serious objections about your perceptions of some wiki policies, but I have at least some measure of respect for you. Iscariot is a blight who will on one hand claim someone lacks the intellectual acumen to engage him directly but on the other hand is in actuality a sniveling coward who uses loopholes to avoid arbitration that he can't mitigate himself or control. He is obviously also a drama stirring troll-whore who is incapable of actual constructive measures and spends his time knocking down a perceived elitist group not because they are actually elitist, but because its a group he knows that not only wouldn't accept him. Additionally, he also knows he couldn't garner enough support from the community he "supposedly" represents to be elected to that position and relies on bullshit misconduct cases and wiki technicalities to snipe at otherwise productive members of the community. I have no illusions about my place or functionality in this wiki and I know I'm not liked for a plethora of different reasons (many of which I engineered myself for reasons that will go to the grave with me), But I can respect you, Karek, for the most part ;) Conndraka^{mod TAZM CFT} 05:33, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

At least you write your own comedy, unlike Nubis that has to plagiarise me. "is in actuality a sniveling coward who uses loopholes to avoid arbitration that he can't mitigate himself or control" - You do realise I'm in a arbitration that I can't mitigate or control? This is what happens when a group biased against one party isn't insisted by the other. Go look at the main page (you know the one with my name on because I'm in an arbitration case I can't control or mitigate) and you'll see what happens when two users use this process for the actual intended purpose. My singular regret to this case is that it happened over the festive period so it couldn't be resolved quicker. "wiki technicalities to snipe at otherwise productive members of the community" - I would agree with you, but your arrogance no doubt includes yourself in that group, and you are anything but 'productive'. "Additionally, he also knows he couldn't garner enough support from the community he "supposedly" represents to be elected to that position" - This thought of yours continues to perturb me. Why do you think it should be the progression of every wiki user to become a sysop? Why do ascribe worth to this position? What makes you think community support has anything to do with the result? I invite you to look at the approval numbers in J3D's first case to Hagnat's most recent. It is my opinion hat you think sysop status is equal to worth on this wiki, and that foretells actions as a rogue sysop in your future with such an outlook. Perhaps you should ask for demotion and then when you feel your productiveness as you term it is being effected, then seek re-election. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 16:39, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Odd, I actually stand behind Iscariot in this one - It's the group leaders responsibility what goes on their own page, not for boxy or any other unrelated party to decide what is best for the page, even if they happen to be a Sysop. I appreciate my comment may have been a little bit harsh, but is at the page owners own discretion as to whether it deserved to stay on the page. An edit, without permission, to remove chunks from someone else's page can even constitute as an act of vandalism.-- Adward  22:49, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

So if the group leadership isn't around at the time, or arn't confident enough to remove abusive comments, because those taking over the page are part of the "in crowd" around here, that love nothing more than to find a witch to burn, then their page can get trashed like you guys were doing, eh?
You wouldn't mind if a dozen guys just got it into their head to start discussions on your main page about how pathetic life cultism is? That's a joke. The first thing that would happen would be that they'd be up on A/VB for posting abusive comments about you on your own page. And don't start with me that the author invited you to post that sort of crap on their page, just think yourselves lucky that a number of you didn't get a warning for it -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 00:03 27 December 2008 (BST)

Oh, and it's got nothing to do with me being a sysop, I used no sysop privileges to remove those comment. I just happen to be a user who is confident enough about what they are doing to push this through arbitration (exactly as Iscariot is doing) -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 00:07 27 December 2008 (BST)

My response is the same as Boxy's. He did not use any sysop ability to force this through (although Hagnat did in protections). We have a fundamental disagreement with regards to user actions on the wiki. Hopefully this arbitration has established that. This isn't a "sysops are evil" case as some people incorrectly perceive many of my actions, it's just the use of a resource to settle a dispute. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 16:39, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

I did not claim that boxy was guilty of misconduct. Read what I actually said next time, and don't put words in my mouth. And your point about people "messing up the HKL page is a joke. For one, we're not quite as sirrius bizness as they are, so we would be unlikely to start a huge big drama fest over it. The invitation to post signatures, and the subsequent non-removal, indeed implies consent. I do wish I had been slightly less idiotic and abrasive, but hey, foresight is a real bitch. Overall, it's not your call to make, boxy.-- Adward  22:43, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

lucas black statement

with the group owner (even if he doesnt call himself that way he still is the owner of the group) saying he doesnt want to have those signatures there, isnt this case pretty much over ? --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{talk mod} 18:01, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

No, because I don't want to have to go through this again every time I try to help someone out -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 06:26 26 December 2008 (BST)

The case was begun and now it needs to be concluded. Properly. I still want concluding arguments from both sides before I made a decision. And, hagnat, I don't mean to be a dick...however, you guys get in a tiff over backseat sysoping, and rightfully so... Please don't backseat arbitrate, thanks. --WanYao 07:06, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Not only was the case began, and needs concluding correctly, but don't you have your own arbitration case that you need to go and sort Hagnat? Odd how you can find the time to jump in here but not do that....

This case was never about page content, that could easily be established and has, it is about the actions and assumptions of users against obvious precedent and ownership guidelines. But then, Hagnat would know this if he actually read the case rather than thought it was like a policy document and just made it up. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 16:43, 27 December 2008 (UTC)