UDWiki talk:Administration/Arbitration/Suicidalangel vs MisterGame

From The Urban Dead Wiki
Jump to navigationJump to search

SA vs Thadeous Oakley

I simply want him banned from editing pages in my name space. Sure, I can remove and revert anything he does currently, but I want it to where he can not edit anything of mine at all. Shouldn't be too hard to get this done and over with. I'll pretty much accept any arbitrator, but would definitely prefer someone who will run through this quick and try to make it funneh, without damaging either party.--Mr. Angel, Help needed? 22:01, 7 June 2009 (BST)

Can I perhaps has arbitration as arbitrator? --Bob Boberton TF / DW 22:03, 7 June 2009 (BST)

You know, you could just ask me. Or make it clear in your rules (Like Izzy doesn't allow admin's). Still, this is a stupid idea. You are majorly responsible for moving and deleting my comments. How am I suppose to contact you then?--Thadeous Oakley 22:07, 7 June 2009 (BST)

Right. User:MisterGame is aware of the case. Do you want to discuss it between yourselves or want a formal arbitration? If its the second option, than thad must agree and confirm his choice of arbie. --RosslessnessWant a Location Image? 22:11, 7 June 2009 (BST)
Go through someone else or pick some else to talk to. Izzy's rules aren't binding in anyway, we can break the rules wihtout them being Vandalism. I want mine binding. You are continuously a pest. I'm going through with this.--Mr. Angel, Help needed? 22:18, 7 June 2009 (BST)
Oh that's nice. Said sysop may edit or move, or otherwise mop my comments but I cannot discuss this with said sysop. The only way I am going to agree with this is if you leave any editing from me, malicious or not, alone and leaving it for other sysops.--Thadeous Oakley 22:24, 7 June 2009 (BST)
Y'see, here's the thing. I'd have no problem with you on my page if you'd follow what few rules I have. Your blink template gave me a head ache. For nothign. So I banned blink. That doesn't mean you don't have to sign properly, it means you use a different form of signing on my page.
And I'd have no problem with talking it out with you if you'd listen. Which you have proven in the last hour alone that you don't. You simply go ahead and do what ever you want at a given time. I said that I no longer wanted you on my page, what do you do? You post again. I told you not to shit up the main page? You do it again. I'm going to keep having to clean up your leftovers, but I don't want to deal with your stupidity on my talk page along with it.
Oh, and just so you know, even if you weren't banned, I'd still be able to ignore a comment on my page or simply remove it. The claim of unfairness that I can move your comments and you can't ask me about it stops there.--Mr. Angel, Help needed? 22:39, 7 June 2009 (BST)

I offer to arbitrate.-- Adward  15:17, 8 June 2009 (BST)

And as stated, I will practically accept any arbitrator, as this should be a fairly straightforward case. The problem is getting Thadeous to pick.--Mr. Angel, Help needed? 15:43, 8 June 2009 (BST)

He seems reasonably willing to cooperate SA, i don't think arbies is the best path to go down, i can't think of any cases where someones gone to arbies specifically to have someoneelse banned from editing their talk page and i think it should stay that way.--xoxo 16:02, 8 June 2009 (BST)

And you're wrong. It's happened multiple times, its actually why Iscariot can't take the admin team to A/VB or A/M, because he hasn't gotten it sanctioned by arbies. When I get home, if no one else has shown examples, I surely will.--Mr. Angel, Help needed? 16:06, 8 June 2009 (BST)
Can i haz nao? --xoxo 00:56, 10 June 2009 (BST)
I think this would be one time when arbies is the best thing to do. We never use it because people are always trying to talk it out. That rarely works, so getting something that will be binding and enforceable is probably the right path.--SirArgo Talk 16:49, 8 June 2009 (BST)

If you can't deal with my "stupidity" then don't deal with me at all and leave me alone. It's my right to go into discussion with you. If you don't like my edits on the general wiki (not your talk page) , then you 1. Convince me to stop, 2. Take me to A/VB or 3. Leave the edits alone. You have always gone for option 1. What your proposing is none of these things. Next time you mop my edits, I'm suppose to accept that blindly?--Thadeous Oakley 16:32, 8 June 2009 (BST)

1) It's not your right. User name space rights and all. 2)It's hard to leave you alone when you not only come to my page and ask me stuff, but you also post inane and stupid things on the main page of a vandalism case you are not involved with. Not to mention you fuck things up and make me look misconductable when I'm not. We have that box at the beginning to make it easier to sort through the shit to find the details we need, and the rulings. I've asked you before to stop doing it, and you continue. Bob was the bringer of the case in that time, he was entirely allowed. You were not involved any any way. What I've tried to do is to get you to stop this shit without taking you to A/VB. Now that I don't want to keep wasting time on you, I'm going to go about my business, without having to hear you. That way your comments aren't shitting up the admin pages and the like, yet I don't have to try and explain to you time and time again why a lot of your edits are not welcome there. Oh, and 3) Yes, you are supposed to "accept it blindly" because even if this goes through for some reason and doesn't get you barred from editing my talk page, I still plan to remove and ignore every edit you make to my pages. The only thing this case does is make it to where I don't have to remove your comments because they won't be there.--Mr. Angel, Help needed? 19:58, 8 June 2009 (BST)
You know, if this case doesn't work out I'd be happy to assist you in your noble quest to remove Thadeous from your talk page - with your permission, of course. --Cyberbob 02:23, 9 June 2009 (BST)
I offer my sledgehammer (yay Red Faction) as well, should you so desire. --Bob Boberton TF / DW 02:38, 9 June 2009 (BST)
I appreciate it guys, but I'd really just like this to be settled here. It's a simple user rights issue, and if he doesn't respond soon, I'm going to ask for representatives for him. I'm not going to break the wiki with this, I just don't want him able to edit my pages.--Mr. Angel, Help needed? 02:48, 9 June 2009 (BST)

I'll arbitrate if you both agree, but it's not an open and shut case, you'll have to show good cause why he should be banned from your talk page, because a talk page isn't purely yours. It's there for people to contact you (especially important given your role as sysop), and we should only remove that option from them if they have clearly and consistently abused the privilege -- boxy talk • teh rulz 03:24 9 June 2009 (BST)

If Thadeous tells who he's okay with, this can get started. And to top it off, I'd be fine with leaving his comments alone, I think he's going to listen to me now. But if it's something like where he made it look like I was ruling on a case I'm involved in, I will fix it. So based on that, it should still be pretty open-shut. Other people clean up his messes, I don't have to deal with him on my talk page. I don't clean up his messes, he has no reason to associate with me.--Mr. Angel, Help needed? 03:43, 9 June 2009 (BST)
^You finally get it. *Walks out of page.* --Haliman - Talk 04:27, 9 June 2009 (BST)
Giggles. you came back and your first edit was on the arbitration page. fitting. xD DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 04:30, 9 June 2009 (BST)
Do ho ho, you're so funny. See, here's the thing. People I tend to stop liking and wish to stop editing my pages or have anything to do with me tend to not get the hint and continue to do so. So, to prevent any further interactions with him, no matter what his motive is, I want him banned from it. It's pretty simple. Also, can you people stop editing my god damned case? You're not offering to arbitrate (Not that I'd accept you anyway), so don't edit the page. That goes for everyone else too. This isa practically an open-shut case, there's nothign you guys can really discuss about it, nor is it required.--Mr. Angel, Help needed? 05:13, 9 June 2009 (BST)
Wauw. Also, if people want to edit this case then please continue. I want as much input as I can get. Also this is "our" case not yours. Your forcefully dragging me out here, I think I am allowed to ask people for input and discuss this. Alas though, I'm willing to accept Boxy.--Thadeous Oakley 09:26, 9 June 2009 (BST)
Well it looks like Thad has grudgingly accepted me as arbitot... SA, do you? -- boxy talk • teh rulz 11:13 9 June 2009 (BST)
You do realise according to the guidelines you don't have to accept an arbiter, or even engage in the arbitration right? --RosslessnessWant a Location Image? 09:28, 9 June 2009 (BST)
Well I'm not sure about that. Apparently if I don't he can go on without me.--Thadeous Oakley 09:43, 9 June 2009 (BST)
That he can. (Ross, there's precedent for this; you can go digging for it yourself if you really care that much) --Cyberbob 09:59, 9 June 2009 (BST)
Yep. He can, I was just throwing up some options as Thadeous seemed less than impressed. We ever had a previous case where a user been banned from commenting on a sops page, without the reverse also being true? Come on bob, I know you're house is wallpapered with these things.--RosslessnessWant a Location Image? 10:05, 9 June 2009 (BST)
It is within your rights to choose an arbitrator that you trust. If you and SA can't agree on an arbitrator then precedent suggests that neither side can force the issue... For the record though I will be willing to arbitrate. --Honestmistake 11:06, 9 June 2009 (BST)

If you have not chosen an Arbitatortot I am willing to offer my services. I am very familiar with Arby's, having eaten there several times. I am unbiased against logic but extremely biased against stupidity. I know nothing of this case so I will be using your arguments alone before doing research of my own. Choose me if you want a nice, fun, exciting case. --Sonny Corleone DORIS I jizzed in my pants pr0n 16:37, 9 June 2009 (BST)

Alright, he's accepted boxy, I suppose I will too. Like I said, open-shut.--Mr. Angel, Help needed? 17:07, 9 June 2009 (BST)

So it should be a faster case. Just saying. :) --Mr. Angel, Help needed? 17:08, 9 June 2009 (BST)


You're going to have to choose an arbitrator. If you don't SA will be able to choose for you. --Cyberbob 17:05, 8 June 2009 (BST)

Not true --People's Commissar Hagnat [talk] [wcdz] 20:13, 8 June 2009 (BST)
Truer than you think. At the top of this page "In assisting in Arbitration, we generally suggest that both parties agree to the Arbitration. This is not, by any means, a requirement, but we do require that both parties be represented in proceedings."
Now, based upon that, we have yet another contradiction in this damn wiki. Why are they every where? And in this case, not just because it'd benefit me, we should honestly follow a forceful arbitration if it's needed. To deny it literally makes this entire system moot. Whats the point in having a system to settle shit if it doesn't work because we can all just sat no?--Mr. Angel, Help needed? 20:28, 8 June 2009 (BST)
Your quote is outdaded. I should have fixed that when i wrote the arbitration guidelines last year, my bad. The reason why arbitration does not work the way you want its because it was not built to solve personal issues like this. You are not supposed barge in here asking for a user to be forbidden to use your talk page (or any other page you own). Instead, you should use this place to find a way for you two to be able to work together in a constructive fashion. Barring both from talking to each other for a given time should be frowned upon, and only be the decision made by the arbitrator after every other means to solve the issue had failed. --People's Commissar Hagnat [talk] [wcdz] 20:37, 8 June 2009 (BST)
Your edits, along with Izzy's are not entirely valid to that page. There was no consensus by the entirety of the community to let you or others edit that page. You should not "fix" that problem based upon a rogue users edits. Arbitration is our method of dealing with disputes and being used as such. If you don't like it, tough. Write a policy instead of stealth editing shit. ;). But seriously, I'm well within my rights to ask for this.--Mr. Angel, Help needed? 20:41, 8 June 2009 (BST)
It become concensus when it was left un-edited for more than 15 monhts with a link in an administration page advising users to use said page as guideline. --People's Commissar Hagnat [talk] [wcdz] 21:11, 8 June 2009 (BST)
It didn't, because at the top of the page, the page we use more as a guideline and rule book for arbies, it still said others can and will be forced into arbies if the need arises.--Mr. Angel, Help needed? 21:14, 8 June 2009 (BST)
Precedent and common sense are against you here SA, he is entirely within his rights to refuse any arbitration if he feels there is no need for it and this has been proven may times (by Grim on at least 2 or 3 occasions for starters) In any event the resolution can only binding if you accept arbitration or it wouldn't be called arbitration... perhaps what you are looking for is a trial by peers (or combat) --Honestmistake 00:22, 9 June 2009 (BST)
And i just found a flaw on SA line of thought. Heh.
In assisting in Arbitration, we generally suggest that both parties agree to the Arbitration. This is not [..] a requirement, but we do require that both parties be represented in proceedings.
Genereally suggest and not a requirement imply that the user is free to choose if he wants to accept the arbitration or not. And the final bit simply state the user can accept arbitration, yet have someone else representing him during the proccedings. --People's Commissar Hagnat [talk] [wcdz] 00:29, 9 June 2009 (BST)
Right then. SA, how about you make it explicitly clear to Thad that if he edits in your namespace again, you'll take him to A/VB for vandalism. That's essentially what you want out of this arby, and if you make your wishes explicit and those wishes are within your rights (your namespace), and he breaks them, I could see you winning an A/VB case against Thad. No arby required, even if you can't get him to agree to one. --Bob Boberton TF / DW 00:54, 9 June 2009 (BST)
No Hag, what that line means is that if the other user doesn't agree, we'll just have someone chosen to represent them, the arbitration goes on, and the other user is screwed. Your understanding of the English language is lacking. Instead of trying to turn a system that currently is fine as it is into a system that will be rendered useless, try concentrating on the important things. Like making a system for personality conflicts, like this one, and edit disputes. I have precedence on my side (Various restraining orders place upon parties, like with Akule and the Fifth Horseman). This is a simple issue that is afforded to me by user space rights. I don't want "Well just tell him to stay away" or "Well threaten him". If I threaten him, it won't have any grounds because nothing went through fucking arbies. If I tell him to stay away, he'll still be able to post any time he wants. A simple arbitration would fix all these problems. And it doesn't help with Hagnat trying to wikilawyer (And failing, Imight add) what he wants, and then stealth changing guidelines and rules, and modifying the way we do things around here. When he's not a sysops. When there wasn't any consent. I want a simple arbitration case, and I will proceed with it whether Hag's, or Mistergame like it or not.--Mr. Angel, Help needed? 01:11, 9 June 2009 (BST)
Wow. You sound like Iscariot now. Not only you are putting your hand over your ears and yelling 'lalalalayouarewronglalalaimarightlalala', but you are also accusing me of stealth editing guidelines... which my recent move simply made it EASIER to pinpoint any changes made to the guidelines. What next, you accusing me of abusing my trusted powers for my own agenda ? oh, wait, i dont have them anymore... you do, and you just used to protect the abirtation guidelines pages (pages i created and edited) to fit *YOUR* agenda... hum. --People's Commissar Hagnat [talk] [wcdz] 01:26, 9 June 2009 (BST)
And btw, the arbitration system is *NOT* working fine. It never did. Specially with people using it to solve their own personal disputes in juvenile fashion like you are doing now. --People's Commissar Hagnat [talk] [wcdz] 01:29, 9 June 2009 (BST)
Considering in your "move" of the page guidelines into a template, you removed a part that has been there since god knows how long? Yeah. I consider that stealth editing hagnat. Especially considering there was no god damned discussion about wanting Iscariot's edit. Yes, I protected them, because yet again you're throwing the god damned rule book out the window, because you like doing things your way and god help you if some pesky red tape gets in the way amirite? Hagnat, please refrain from editing this case, as you have not offered to arbitrate, and are doing nothing but shitting my case up with your incorrect bullshit. And I also reject you as arbitrator if you think about offering to be a douche. :) --Mr. Angel, Help needed? 01:33, 9 June 2009 (BST)
Since the arbitraion guidelines i wrote in january apparently has no weight since it never passed through community discussion, there is nothing forbidding me from editing your arbie case, SA. And you call it incorrect bulsshit, but honestmistake comment above seems to agree with me, and so does several users in other cases (which were not archived because they were not accepted, oh bummer) --People's Commissar Hagnat [talk] [wcdz] 01:48, 9 June 2009 (BST)
Sorry Hagnat but trying to guilt-trip SA into allowing your edits to go through is not going to work when those edits were made without any sort of discussion. I'm actually glad you aren't a sysop anymore because your level of self-entitlement is terrifying. You don't get to unilaterally make those kinds of judgement calls - you got misconducted for it a shitload of times and now you're leaving yourself open to vandalism cases. --Cyberbob 01:35, 9 June 2009 (BST)
so speaks the troll who thinks its people enough to get his sysop powers.... fyi, I could only get misconducted if i abused any sysop powers. Since all these edits were made with me as a user, i find it highly doubtful that it could be seen as misconduct in any way. --People's Commissar Hagnat [talk] [wcdz] 01:48, 9 June 2009 (BST)
I was talking about your tendency to make unilateral judgement calls in general rather than illegally editing arbitration guidelines in particular. Please take the time to read what I say properly. --Cyberbob 01:51, 9 June 2009 (BST)

Ruling

What a terrible ruling. SA's right to keep MisterGame off his talk page should by all rights override MisterGame's "right" to post there especially considering how badly he has abused this "right" (I can't believe that this word has actually been unironically applied here). Fuck that.

Specific Case Editing Guidelines
It has been explicitly noted that User: and User talk: pages are the sole property of that particular user (so, User:Odd Starter and User talk:Odd Starter are both sole property of Odd Starter). As such, Users are free to do whatever they wish to their user pages, including complete wiping of any comments, removal of material they do not like, etc, though it is considered poor form to do this, and it is recommended that users create archive subpages in which to store dead conversation. Further, Users may request the deletion of their User and User talk pages, or any subpages therein.

This quote should say it all. Obviously boxy thinks it does not. --Cyberbob 04:14, 24 June 2009 (BST)

Moved from main page -- boxy talk • teh rulz 16:35 24 June 2009 (BST)

You dragged me down here. Don't expect recommendable behavior from me under force. Now you got your case, and your still whining. I'm not planning on going to contact you again. Suck it up, SA.--Thadeous Oakley 10:21, 24 June 2009 (BST)

Lmfao. You quite literally have the mentality of a petulant child. Like I'm not even kidding here - if you aren't in actuality of the age 10-12 then you should definitely seek out counselling. --Cyberbob 12:31, 24 June 2009 (BST)
You two ought to get along well then. Your pettiness and ability to blow shit out of proportion is massive.--SirArgo Talk 16:17, 24 June 2009 (BST)
I think you've got an extra colon there champ. --Cyberbob 16:19, 24 June 2009 (BST)
If you would actually read my userpage you would know I'm 17. Also its counseling not counselling.--Thadeous Oakley 17:34, 24 June 2009 (BST)
Off to counselling (can't you tell English and American apart? poor baby) you trot, then. --Cyberbob 17:38, 24 June 2009 (BST)

I kinda feel curious towards you. What are you compensating for that you apparently miss? For that makes you try to humiliate me as much as possible. Try to grow some character. I don't think you need counseling but you should look at yourself and truly ask yourself why you are doing this.

Put that bad-ass mask off, you are losing track of your true self, and your actions become more and more extreme. Or else you'll suffer the consequences, no not today, but our past actions will catch up to us all eventually. Now it's not that I am all right here. I more and more realize that I'm getting carried away by this drama. This place ain't worth it, by far not. I disagree entirely the way things go here, but its futile to try to change the way the wiki works. I don't see the point anymore, and any further drama will be time wasting. It still was an interesting experience though, I have learned from this, yes even from you. Mostly learned what not to do here, haha. By now most of you will probably be scratching your head. Writing this feels like a relieve though. Knowing this, and I can find out where it all went wrong.

Probably because when I don't like things, I don't like 'em. Rather then adapting to these things, I try to change them or to try convince others that these things need to be addressed. I tend to be a bit less then charming when I do this though. That's the time when people start telling I´m wrong and that I should accept it. I have no problem with that, if only it got backed up with good arguments. That brings me to another problem, the reasoning of some people. Maybe its my fault, but rarely do I find solid reasons to agree with people here. I have found myself in endless conversations (much to the dislike of some people) with certain persons, which led from argument to another counter, ending in circular logic. "Why does it work like that? Because it does."

By now I have become unpopular and annoying for many people. This doesn't help me or anyone else. I guess it's too late now though. Now I'll admit I can be a bit of an eccentric here. By personal traits, I'm an introvert, with a strong feel towards logic, and a bit of assholenish towards strong feelings. Though I think I left logic a little too much behind on this wiki. Maybe not, I am good at over-thinking like that. I might be judging myself to softly now, or too harsh. Finding the right balance between under-and-overestimation is hard in such ways.

Doesn't mean I need counseling Bob. Mentally top-notch ;). Not that there is anything wrong with counseling. Allot of people do go there these days, most schools offer some form of it. On a final note, sometimes I go overkill on writing, like there's no end to it. Like now, I suppose.--Thadeous Oakley 18:58, 24 June 2009 (BST)

whoa --neo, the matrix 19:06, 24 June 2009 (BST)
The classic 'wall-of-text' defense. -- THELORDGUNSLINGER 21:17, 25 June 2009 (BST)

If Thad ignores the case

SA that isn't really a concern for you because the interim ruling would just apply indefinately. And as the interim ruling is what you wanted out of the case, everyones a winner :) --xoxo 09:21, 15 June 2009 (BST)

See here. Interim rulings are temporary, so it wouldn't apply indefinitely. At any time Box deems necessary, the temp. ruling can be abolished. That's why he's going to make a real ruling later.--Mr. Angel, Help needed? 17:33, 15 June 2009 (BST)

MG's defense

Ik heb hier geen zin in. Waardeloos idee, tijdverspilling en mijn aandacht niet waard.--Thadeous Oakley 14:36, 20 June 2009 (BST)

For those who can't read Dutch, (paraphrased slightly): I find no need for this. This is a stupid idea and not worth either my time or attention. -- Cheese 14:47, 20 June 2009 (BST)
Hartstikke bedankt Kaas, maar maak me niet wijs dat jij Nederlands kan. Vertaal programma opzoeken kunnen ze zelf ook nog wel >.<--Thadeous Oakley 23:22, 20 June 2009 (BST)
You know, deliberately speaking in another language to make it harder for people to figure out what you're saying could be construed as bad faith. --Cyberbob 12:22, 21 June 2009 (BST)
A/VB. 50 bucks says it couldnt.--xoxo 12:45, 21 June 2009 (BST)
dont you know underage betting is illegal? dont make me call your parents --Cyberbob 12:54, 21 June 2009 (BST)
User: J3D.--xoxo 12:58, 21 June 2009 (BST)
And way to avoid admitting you are oh so wrong.--xoxo 15:39, 21 June 2009 (BST)
There's no way to prove otherwise without a case actually being brought against him, which I will not do unless he does it again. --Cyberbob 15:58, 21 June 2009 (BST)
Laat je nakijken. Ik mag praten in de taal die ik kies, of gaan we weer discrimineren? Dit is sowieso de praatpagina, als je het je niet bevalt dan lees je het toch gewoon niet?--Thadeous Oakley 19:23, 21 June 2009 (BST)
This is an English site populated by English-speaking people (even if it is their second language). It is not unreasonable to expect that if you have the ability to speak in English you do so, particularly in a situation like Arbitration (I don't care what you do on your own userpages). Discrimination doesn't enter into it at all you stupid fucking twat; it's about the ability of people to understand you without having to resort to a shitty translator that likely either gets a lot of it totally wrong or misses out on some inflection that is key to a statement's meaning in a context where that sort of thing is extremely important. You're deriving an extremely childish pleasure out of this and it's not fucking on. --Cyberbob 19:28, 21 June 2009 (BST)
At best its spamming. And even then, it would only be vandalism on admin pages perhaps. Apart from this specific admin page, its a case in which I'm involved in, and if I chose to spam it then that's my responsibility not yours. Nobody is forcing you to read. Ga iemand anders aub lastig vallen en bedreigen, ja?--Thadeous Oakley 19:33, 21 June 2009 (BST)
"nobody's forcing you to read it" is a well-used argument by internet dipshits; it was never a good one. Keep the Dutch to your userpages. --Cyberbob 19:39, 21 June 2009 (BST)


Hello, I just wanted to know where do i find how to make a cool wiki page! Ty in advace!--Bonghit420 13:33, 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)
Dude you chose arbitration. Which means you agree to accept another users ruling. You can't come out and say your chosen user has no right to make a ruling, thats just nonsensical. --xoxo 12:50, 6 July 2009 (BST)

On the wiki, there is nothing like a spam filter or any way to delete or block users from contacting you -- as exists on all email services and social networking sites. Why should the UD wiki be special in that any shithead can send you any old shit he wants, without you the recipient having any control? I don't see how that's reasonable. --WanYao 13:19, 6 July 2009 (BST)

Boxy's never let reason get in the way of an opportunity to make himself look more moderate. --Cyberbob 13:23, 6 July 2009 (BST)

*Sigh* This still going on?--Thadeous Oakley 13:29, 6 July 2009 (BST)

When you set out to be annoying you clearly don't mess around. --Cyberbob 13:31, 6 July 2009 (BST)
M'kay. Anyway, a ruling is a ruling and we are forced to accept it, so I don't really see point of trying to come out of it. For the record, I do not have any intention of contacting SA again for now, apart from the situation that it is absolutely necessary.--Thadeous Oakley 13:40, 6 July 2009 (BST)
Retrieved from "http://wiki.urbandead.com//index.php?title=UDWiki_talk:Administration/Arbitration/Suicidalangel_vs_MisterGame&oldid=1501424"