UDWiki:Administration/Arbitration/Iscariot vs Boxy

St. Iscariot versus Boxy

Over the edits to a group page that Boxy is not part of. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 01:27, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

From Talk:S.O.S., because I don't feel like repeating myself -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 01:34 21 December 2008 (BST)

---

None of the above signatures seem to be supporting the "strike", so they don't belong on the main page -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 01:08 21 December 2008 (BST)

Fact - Group page, you have no right to edit according to you whims. Fact - They haven't been removed already by the group, as you know under wiki tradition, silence implies consent. Fact - Take it to vandal banning, and watch yourself lose. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 01:10, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Fact, you yourself, being not a member of the "group", don't have the right to carry on abusive arguments on their main page. You take it to A/VB, and see how you go -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 01:12 21 December 2008 (BST)

Fact - The section implies that 'opinions' may be added and they have not already been removed by the group when they have been editing the page since. That implies consent. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 01:14, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

And your insistence that it's a group page implies much more strongly that it's asking for opinions from supporters of the general concept, no abusive commentary from all and sundry -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 01:23 21 December 2008 (BST)

That would be your opinion, the fact is that the page owners have allowed these comments and not already removed them, therefore, inaction implies consent. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 01:24, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Much more likely that they don't understand wiki policy in this regard, and don't want to get in trouble for removing others posts -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 01:28 21 December 2008 (BST)

Wouldn't the correct course of action been to ask them, rather than assume intent and unilaterally impose your will on the wiki? -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 01:31, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

---

Given the way that it had turned into an abusive discussion, no, besides which, I've stopped taking out only the sigs now, and only the discussion, which obviously belongs on the talk page, and have already contacted the original author long ago -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 01:34 21 December 2008 (BST)

Note, by this point Boxy had reverted the page twice whilst this case had been open, displaying complete disregard for the established precedents of arbitration. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 01:37, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

I note that the only reason you brought this case was to get your version to be the one left on the page. You made no attempt to make your case here, you didn't even give a link to the page in question, instead leaving it up to me to bring the facts of the discussion here. As far as I'm concerned, there is no contention in an edit that removes continued and abusive discussion from someone's main page and places it on the talk page. It's pure common courteously -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 01:44 21 December 2008 (BST)

My case was clear enough for you to follow. Also your comment implies that you are aware that you should not have continued to revert the page, that says it all about sysop conduct. I am not maintaining my edit, I am maintaining the wishes of the group owners until such time it is made clear to me that they do not want the content there. Your attempts to moderate the content of others' pages is telling. You may now select arbitrator choices, I will not accept any past or present sysop or Sonny. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 01:48, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Continued discussion from within votes and other lists is routinely moved to the talk page, especially when it gets off topic enough to turn into slanging matches about people being zerging scumfucks. You wikilawyering this to preserve your abusive comments on the main page is bad faith, IMO -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 01:52 21 December 2008 (BST)

If it's bad faith you should be taking this to A/VB for a witch hunt. As for sysops knowing policy, hahahahahahahahahaha -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 01:56, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

So, who do you want as arbitrator, Iscariot? Let me guess, no sysops (they know too much about wiki policy for you to wikilawyer around, eh) -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 01:53 21 December 2008 (BST)

I routinely accept Wan Yao or Suicidal Angel, SA is inactive, so I'll select Wan Yao. Objections? -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 01:56, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

No problem here -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 01:58 21 December 2008 (BST)

If you're both still in agreement, I'll take this. However, it may surprise you to know that I'm a virgin -- so please go easy on me!! ;P

This is how I want to proceed: I'm going to ask for the usual opening statements -- first from Iscariot, followed by boxy -- to get this rolling. After that, there will be short "intermission" during which I may have some questions to ask, etc. I'm also going to try to contact the original creator of the page for a comment, to be posted after the opening statements have been made. I may then go straight to rebuttals followed by a decision, or I may modify the standard procedure if it seems more appropriat. I'll inform you of anything non-routine before it happens. Thanks. --WanYao 04:30, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

For the record: the creator of the page has been asked to make a statement or three in this case. --WanYao 05:03, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Opening Statements

St. Iscariot

Wow, I'd forgotten what actually getting to arbitration looks likes thanks to the rest of the sysop team.

Now, firstly I'd like to express my displeasure that the signatures were again removed from the page after (rather than before as Hagnat claims, the logs are clear) the page was protected. Not only are the protections guidelines clear (the page should be protected as is when the request is reviewed) but the arbitration condition (that the controversial edit should be removed) has also been ignored. The controversial edit was clearly Boxy's, the removal of section of a group page when he was not a member of that group, but yet again Hagnat decides he will moderate this wiki as he sees fit, ignoring precedence and policy because it suits him.

EDIT: Whilst writing this opening statement I see that it has now been changed to the correct difference, all it took was a couple of thousand words and a misconduct case....

On with the case...

This case concerns Boxy's removals and reversions to his preferred edit of the signatures section of the S.O.S. page.

If we look at page history logs, we can see that his first removal was accompanied with the justification "Signatures ===> talk page. the main page is not a place for this type of critisism (sic)".

This statement is clearly opinion. Nowhere in any policy or guideline does it say that there may not be criticism to a group on their page. Therefore it is not the content that can be the reason for justifiable removal. The only other thing it can be under the page ownership rules, where he is removing content made by people who are not members of a group. Again this must be fallacious, otherwise I will see Boxy present his research that every signatory on that page did not have at least one alt in the S.O.S. movement.

It has been set by precedent time and again that edits may be made to another group's page with their consent by people. Simply, it's their page, their rules. The God Emperor, a contributor to that page set up the Signatures section. Both he and the page's creator have been editing since the first of those signatures went up. It is therefore reasonable to assume that they wanted the content there, or at the very least did not mind it. Boxy will of course present that they did not know whether or not they could remove other people's posts, two points on this. Firstly the correct course would have been to ask the group whether they wanted the content and to inform them that they could remove it. It was incorrect to make an assumption of their views and edit accordingly. Secondly, if you look at the talk page, you can see The God Emperor asking if there are any objection to him removing a trolling comment. This expresses that he knows he can remove comments and is asking for other opinions of his fellow members before doing so.

The other major point is that the page is fluid, with the members reacting to the posts of their critics, it is reasonable to assume the content was intentionally left to serve as a base for these revisions. Under this point it is clear that it is Boxy undermining the movement, by making their points look baseless.

Finally, the future of the page is not a concern to me, the page owners may decide whether the content should be there or not, subject of course to standard wiki policy, the concern is the actions of Boxy. Entering into an edit war, reverting whilst an arbitration case is open and making blind assumptions about other users and editing pages he has no right to is hardly behaviour that should be associated with a wiki citizen, let alone a trusted user. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 07:21, 21 December 2008 (UTC)