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)