UDWiki:Administration/Arbitration/The Entire Wiki Community vs Cornholioo

The Entire Wiki Community vs. User:Cornholioo

Periodically, this situation happens: Cornholioo has declared that a certain person don't post on his talk page. That person posts on this talk page nevertheless. Cornholioo reports that person for vandalism. Sysops rule that it isn't vandalism and that Cornholioo has to form an Arby's case. Cornholioo doesn't form an arby's case, so later on, the whole process repeats. I'm pretty sure the sysops are going to be sick of it.

Not that forming an arby's case is going to do any good. Cornholioo's header prohibits several people from talking to him, meaning that for his header to mean anything, he has to make an arby case for every single person. And what happens if, later on, Cornholioo wants to prohibt someone else from talking on his talk page? Another Arby's case. You guys are going to be sick.

It's just wasting time and causing drama. What I want is a simple solution to end bureacratic wrangling. All people are allowed to talk on Cornholioo's Talk Page, except for any non-sysop who is mentioned in Cornholioo's header. If anyone violates this, then the arbitrator can decide if he wants to take that violator to VB. That may not be what Cornholioo wants. So be it. But let's get this over with, please?

The main problem, of course, is finding an arbitator that the Entire Wiki Community would agree to. For lack of a better representive, I am willing to assume that the sysops represent the wiki community, and thus would be allowed to appoint an arbitator on behalf of the wiki community.--ShadowScope^{'the true enemy'} 20:44, 5 May 2010 (BST)

Speaking for myself, yep, I'm not too happy seeing new A/VB cases all the time, but if he keeps spamming up A/VB, he'll be escalated soon. Also, as of next week he can post to A/A again, and I expect a case or two of him vs. people that offend him. Restraining order arbitration cases are quick and simple, and there are only so many people that want to antagonize him anyway, so it's not like it can go on forever. Finally, something like what you propose is unenforceable, since you can't bind someone to a ruling of an arbitration case that they were never informed of or had a chance to participate in. Arbitrators are supposed to contact everyone involved to be sure that they are aware of the case and understand the ruling, but such a thing is impossible in your solution. —Aichon— 21:28, 5 May 2010 (BST)

Due to the previous rulings, corn has been unable to bring arbies cases without first checking them through a third party. This has curtailed the number of such cases. The point of the vandalism cases isn't just to show what corn believes to be vandalism, but also establishes a clear pattern on posts by people on his pages. Believe it or not, pretty much every arbitration case has resulted on mutual restraining orders against those people involved in the arbitration. Which leads to them being unable to post on his pages. Although its admirable you're trying to save time, there's no real point. If he asks for you not to post on his page, simply don't. --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 21:34, 5 May 2010 (BST)

To basically sum up what Ross and Aichon have said, there is one simple rule you should probably stick to in situations such as this: Thou Shalt not feed the Trolls. The more you post on his page, the more he's just going to reply and attention seek so just leave him be. -- Cheese 21:38, 5 May 2010 (BST)

I wasted so many words. --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 21:43, 5 May 2010 (BST)

Cheese speaks the truth, almost all of the related drama could have been prevented if people just ignored him.--Thadeous Oakley 22:08, 5 May 2010 (BST)

but I do so love poking him with a stick when hes trying to sleep under his bridge. -- 

•   Timmah!  

•   Talk  

08:23, 6 May 2010 (BST)

All this boils down into one thing: Stop being cunts and feeding a drama-mongering fuckstick. You're only adding fuel to the flames, and this case is just fucking retarded.-- Adward  22:30, 5 May 2010 (BST)

I like my idea better. Let's keep the idiot talking just long enough to perma ban his ass... -Poodle of Doom^{M! T} 22:32, 5 May 2010 (BST)

/signed Adward. This is even more fucking stupid than Corholioo's cases and as a user who's been "banned" from talking to Corholioo on his talk page I don't want Shadowscope talking on my behalf at all. --

 

 

 

 

03:53, 6 May 2010 (BST)

fuck off shadowscope Cyberbob  Talk  03:55, 6 May 2010 (BST)

Alright, alright. I withdraw this case.--ShadowScope^{'the true enemy'} 04:30, 6 May 2010 (BST)

Awww I missed it. :( 13:17, 7 May 2010 (BST)