UDWiki:Administration/Arbitration/Amazing vs ASS

Links

Ongoing list of links as per ASS members' wrongdoing.

1. http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php/Assault_on_Stupid_Survivors

   Their group page, of course. Note inflammatory personal insults and blatant disregard for civility. Previous ruling against GANKBUS states that such statements are not permitted. Especially in such a vicious manner.

2. http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php/Moderation/Vandal_Banning#Amazing

   Member of ASS claims he has the right to add POV comments to an NPOV section, then claims the group leader cannot De-POV-itize his commentary. We'll see how it turns out.

3. http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php/Moderation/Deletions#User-aimed_Template_boxes

   Creators of a few templates specifically made to antagonize and defame yours truly.

Amazing 08:00, 3 May 2006 (BST)

Gee, we're not GANKBUS. Hurrrrr. --BobHammero _ASS 08:04, 3 May 2006 (BST)

It's a precident, and you know that. I believe you're acting stupid as opposed to ACTUALLY being stupid. And no, you do not get to NPOV-itize my own posts. -- Amazing 08:05, 3 May 2006 (BST)

If you claim our POV group page as evidence, we damn well do. The hypocrisy is hilarious. --BobHammero _ASS 08:08, 3 May 2006 (BST)

You are not permitted to edit my comments here in such a way. You are well aware that I report such vandalism whenever it occurs. Consider this a second warning, more than I've given others. -- Amazing 08:10, 3 May 2006 (BST)

Consider this: the ruling hasn't yet occurred. Thus, it's not wrongdoing. It's ALLEGED wrongdoing. You are engaging in libel. --BobHammero _ASS 08:17, 3 May 2006 (BST)

You are in no position to complain about libel, so moving on... -- Amazing 08:20, 3 May 2006 (BST)

ASS's Rebuttal

The arbitration case against ASS originally just involved templates. However, as Amazing has expanded the case beyond its original purpose, we feel the need to add evidence supporting our argument.

1. Crossman Defense Force "Griefer/Troll Groups". Note how Amazing changed the page from its original, somewhat insulting state to its current state. Amazing's decision to further defame ASS came from this heated discussion, in which I politely asked him (and not for the first time) to modify his page, as we had done for him in the past.
2. The editing guide, which states that, setting aside the NPOV section, "the rest of the page is allowed to be as biased and full of propaganda as the group wishes."
3. Amazing's supposed "NPOV" section that he added to our page. Quoting from the editing guide again, the NPOV section must be written from "a view that does not forward any particular agenda." Amazing's "NPOV" section is plainly not neutral, and after filing a vandalism report against Amazing and editing the section to be actually neutral, Amazing has ceased editing our page (for the moment). --BobHammero _ASS 21:35, 3 May 2006 (BST)
4. ASS would also like to note this vandalism report against Amazing (there are several), in which Amazing himself (backed up by other wiki members) defends his right to post whatever material he may choose in the non-NPOV section of the CDF page: the exact same right that Amazing is trying to quash for ASS. --Bob Hammero _ASS 05:18, 9 May 2006 (BST)
5. To quote: "Member of ASS claims he has the right to add POV comments to an NPOV section, then claims the group leader cannot De-POV-itize his commentary". This is a complete and blatant lie, as anyone should be able to discern simply by following the link to the page. I'm not claiming the right to add POV comments, I'm claiming the right not to be libeled in a supposedly NPOV section. OMFG! This will surely be the end of all the intarwebs! Further, this was illegally submitted past the deadline for submitting evidence in this case, and as such should be deleted regardless. I just wanted to make sure nobody got the idea that Amazing's assertion here was in any way valid, accurate or fair. --Jimbo Bob _ASS 03:45, 9 May 2006 (BST)

I think it's still the 8th, actually. As such the deadline has not passed. :) Try again at midnight! -- Amazing 03:49, 9 May 2006 (BST)

Dear Lord, it's on the timestamp after every single persons name on here, and you still can't see it. The deadlines are by "BST", by which measurement it's actually May 9 right now. Sorry, you lose! --Jimbo Bob _ASS 03:55, 9 May 2006 (BST)

Oh well! This was the time I was going by, not the date in signatures. As for losing, it's pretty clear that EVEN THE FIRST LINK ONLY proves you in the wrong in all this. Furthermore, the deadline is the 10th anyway. -- Amazing 04:02, 9 May 2006 (BST)

I have no idea what you're trying to prove by linking to your revision. Regardless, if you'll just take one look at the top of this page, you'll see that 1), the official deadlines are in the BST format, and 2), the evidence-gathering deadline (y'know, the relevant one) is the 8th. And again, I really doubt that "LOOK THEIR INSULTING MEE BAKC!!1" is gonna win this case for you. --Jimbo Bob _ASS 04:14, 9 May 2006 (BST)

You began the war of words. From the start. You'd never deal with me if you did not specifically seek me out and speak of me in the first place. The deadline was the 10th before it was moved to the 8th by the Arbitrator, and I do not accept the 8th so the deadline is the 10th. I changed the text above only to have it changed back again. -- Amazing 04:24, 9 May 2006 (BST)

...And again your opening statement is a complete non sequitur. Trying to start a trend? To respond to where you first enter into coherency: Yes, the Arbitrator did establish an evidence-gathering deadline, seperate from the final deadline, and yes, you did vandalize this page in an attempt to somehow make that go away, and yes, I did revert that vandalism. Wow, this sure is easier when you make all my points for me! --Jimbo Bob _ASS 04:27, 9 May 2006 (BST)

K, arbitrator's dismissed due to his unreasonable and unnecissary bump-up of the deadline. I was trying to get through this, but if you're going to use the un-needed deadline bump-up against me in my evidence posting, I have no choice. -- Amazing 04:31, 9 May 2006 (BST)

And thusly did Amazing desperately deny all arbitration at the last minute, knowing that any reasonable arbitrator would dismiss his case out of hand. I just hope the mod team remembers who's responsible for this after you've forced them to deal with this. --Jimbo Bob _ASS 04:37, 9 May 2006 (BST)

Edit: if you are willing to accept midnight tonight as the evidence-gathering deadline (which, again, is a seperate deadline from the final one) as one of your taunts above implied, ASS might be willing to accept that as a compromise. We certainly don't want it to be said we were afraid of any of the pitiful "evidence" you've accumulated so far. --Jimbo Bob _ASS 04:39, 9 May 2006 (BST)

Actually you denied all arbitrators before this one applied. So yeah, you desperately denied all hoping to avoid the case.

I'll do you one better. Shut up and I'll leave the evidence at that. In fact, if you agree to never speak TO or OF me in an uncivil tone on this wiki ever again, I will agree to the same for you and drop the case. -- Amazing 04:47, 9 May 2006 (BST)

LIE. ASS most emphatically did not deny all arbitrators - and it's certainly worth noting that we were the ones to offer a compromise on the arbitrator. And sorry, but we're not gutting our group page to soothe your fragile ego. The original compromise still stands, however, if you're not too afraid to see this case actually resolved. --Jimbo Bob _ASS 04:52, 9 May 2006 (BST)

Hm. Thought it was you guys that kept moving your case to "Solved". Oh well. And yeah, you will be removing inflammatory comments from your group page, as they go beyond the standards of the spirit of the Wiki. -- Amazing 04:55, 9 May 2006 (BST)

Amazing, if our page was the standard for what goes "beyond the standards of the spirit of the Wiki" you'd have been permabanned a loooong time ago, from everything I've seen. --Jimbo Bob _ASS 05:00, 9 May 2006 (BST)

Amazing, I think Jimbo will agree with me when I say: give it everything you've got. We're quite confident about this case, and we definitely don't agree to your attempt at a plea-bargain. Better hunt for more evidence. --Bob Hammero _ASS 04:53, 9 May 2006 (BST)

Offer to solve the case outside Arbitration again ignored by ASS. -- Amazing 04:55, 9 May 2006 (BST)

Somehow I don't think "give me everything I ever wanted from the beginning" really constitutes a valid offer. --Jimbo Bob _ASS 04:58, 9 May 2006 (BST)

Original rebuttal:

ASS denies that Amazing has any legitimate case against them. They hold that:

• The ASSaultOnAmazing and AmazingOhNoes templates constitute parody, and are thus protected free speech. In addition, ASS denies that these templates are threatening or insulting in any way.
• Amazing has not legitimately attempted a cease fire with ASS, the rules for which are clearly outlined on our page.
• Amazing has acted in bad faith by bringing an in-game issue to the wiki for arbitration, when it was not needed.
• Amazing himself has, and continues to, act inflammatorily, which ASS notes but does not seek arbitration for.--Tehasskickars 03:49, 20 April 2006 (BST)

For the record, bill of rights protections can't be invoked here. In the cold dark void of the interweb, nobody hears you scream. That said, I don't think any of the things you did constitute offensive behavior by our rules either. I'm not "up" on all these so I can't say for sure, but thats my two cents. --Zaruthustra-Mod 03:58, 20 April 2006 (BST)

	Gold in the Basket Supporter
	This user or group believes that if Amazing does in fact put the gold in the basket that this situation can be resolved.

Arbiters

ASS would like Lucero Capell to arbitrate.--Tehasskickars 06:18, 20 April 2006 (BST)

I would be willing to arbitrate, if Amazing accepts. --Lucero Capell 15:58, 20 April 2006 (BST)

I would be willing to arbitrate, if Both Parties accepts. Conndraka 04:06, 21 April 2006 (BST)

I would be willing to arbitrate if both parties accept. --LibrarianBrent 04:20, 21 April 2006 (BST)

I'd be willing, except I'm fairly sure ASS won't accept. --Cyberbob240^{CDF | Arb} 07:10, 21 April 2006 (BST)

You're damn right we don't accept you.--Tehasskickars 07:16, 21 April 2006 (BST)

So, Amazing, do you have anything to say, or are you so shocked that you didn't get everyone on your I am not brain dead hate Amazing list banned that your new plan is just to waste everyone's time?--Tehasskickars 16:44, 21 April 2006 (BST)

I'll get to each case when I can devote enough attention to it given the splintered and chaotic nature of this MESS. I'd accept Brent. Brent's fair enough that I either come out on his bad or good side depending on the ACTUAL FACTS from my experience. -- Amazing 03:00, 22 April 2006 (BST)

The thing is, we deny Brent. Really too bad that it's such a mess now, isn't it? Now remind me, who was it who started this arbitration case again? Those little facts are so easy to forget.--Tehasskickars 18:15, 22 April 2006 (BST)

This from one of the people who purposefully destroyed the case with jabber and is willfully thwarting the system via a loophole. Sorry, but no matter who brought the case forth, you and your kin have clearly caused the chaotic descent. -- Amazing 01:17, 23 April 2006 (BST)

How dare we demand a fair arbiter, and worse yet, stand up for ourselves by pointing out that your entire case against us is a loose collection of fallacies and over-exaggerations! Stop wasting the arbiters and moderators time because you can't handle our success against your group in the game. Oh yeah, and one more thing: we explicitly allowed an arbiter, so you might want to look in the mirror if you want to see someone who's "thwarting the system."--Tehasskickars 10:43, 23 April 2006 (BST)

You're sad. Here we go, around and around. Answers are already there? Who cares, keep it going just to inflame the situation! -- Amazing Amazing 19:40, 23 April 2006 (BST)

Thank you, we needed a laugh. :-) --Tehasskickars 19:52, 23 April 2006 (BST)

I have the sneaking suspicion that you get a laugh from jingling car keys. -- Amazing 19:56, 23 April 2006 (BST)

You know how we voluntarily modified our group page when you complained about what we wrote? It'd be real nice if you did the same thing for the CDF page, since you insult our group ("suggested name change"), whose name you can't even spell ("of" and "on" are different words). Oh wait, you were calling us infantile. My mistake, I thought you were a reasonable person for a minute. --Tehasskickars 21:31, 23 April 2006 (BST)

At the moment I'd advice the parties present to simply list 5 choices each that would be agreeable to them personally and see if any overlap, if not, repeat it again with different choices. if there are, contact the persons on both list and see who wants the case.--Vista ^W! 22:12, 23 April 2006 (BST)

ASS would accept:

• CthulhuFhtagn
• Jjames
• Lucero Capell
• Mia K
• Zaruthustra

--Tehasskickars 05:00, 24 April 2006 (BST)

I just now saw this, and from now on, I'd like you to remember that I won't arbitrate any cases involving Amazing. I can't trust myself to be completely unbiased at the moment when it comes to him. --Sirens^{T RR} 01:40, 4 May 2006 (BST)

That's fair. Largely irrelevant at this point as we've already both agreed on Brizth for this case, but fair. If Amazing should find that the drama-levels on this wiki have dropped to dangerously low levels and decides to start up another Arbitration case against us, we'll leave you out of it. --Jimbo Bob _ASS 03:16, 4 May 2006 (BST)

Thank you. Bare in mind I might change my mind in the future after everything calms down. --Sirens^{T RR} 03:45, 4 May 2006 (BST)

Heh. "Bear", perhaps? But yeah, we'll definitely do that. --Jimbo Bob _ASS 04:15, 4 May 2006 (BST)

I love this game, guess what, there are no overlapping arbitrators. you either may chose again or we try a different version: strike out 12 arbitrators (or less) on the total list amazing used post the result here, and one of the people not striken out will take up the case, reasonable?--Vista ^W! 13:38, 24 April 2006 (BST)

(Note: see the ASS page for who I am.)

ASS will accept:

• CthulhuFhtagn
• Jjames
• Lucero Capell
• MaulMachine
• MIa K.
• Mpaturet
• Scinfaxi
• Zaruthustra

ASS will not accept:

• 'STER
• ALIENwolve
• Amazing
• Axe-man
• Brizth
• Conndraka
• Cyberbob240
• Duce Nauks
• hagnat
• John Rove
• Karlsbad
• LibrarianBrent
• Nubis
• Odd Starter
• ramby
• RCG Tiburon
• Swmono
• The General
• TheTeeHeeMonster
• Tycho44
• Wyndal
• V2Blast
• Vista

--BobHammero _ASS 06:09, 27 April 2006 (BST)

We also additionally refuse any arbitrators that we haven't explicitly agreed to above. --BobHammero _ASS 23:58, 27 April 2006 (BST)

To save anyone looking over this time, of the 'acceptable' arbitrators Bob listed, the only one not on Amazing's reject list is Scinfaxi, but since was involved in another case, and seems to do little more then troll in the other cases, I seriously doubt Amazing would find him acceptable. Velkrin 03:04, 29 April 2006 (BST)

Looks like this one's going to end up being decided by the moderation and arbitration team.--The General ^{W! Mod} 18:09, 29 April 2006 (BST)

Amazing has a dozen arbitration conflicts pending and has a template on his user page about nuking this entire wiki twice, but he still manages to find at least 14 acceptable arbiters. ASS maintains that there is no case at all. I would humbly suggest that ASS "Stop wasting the arbiters and moderators time" (Tehasskickars). Perhaps BobHammero can explain to us in more detail why their particular case requires a constitutional convention and Kevan in a powdered wig to resolve it. --Tycho44 ^W! 02:32, 1 May 2006 (BST)

Good point. Anyway, they're the ones who lose out in the end, it means that the moderation and arbitration team (even people they dissmissed) will rule on the case.--The General ^{W! Mod} 18:01, 1 May 2006 (BST)

That implies that they have a good reason to dismiss these people, and the arbitration setting is naturally not in their favor. Rasher 05:55, 2 May 2006 (BST)

If you assume that your postition in this case is correct and you should not have to change the way you act on this wiki, then the Arbitration process should always be in your favor. Is this evidence you having doubts on the amount of support you actually will receive? --Karlsbad 06:10, 2 May 2006 (BST)

Just because someone is correct does not necessarily mean that they'll be decided in favor of. If the arbitrator or moderator is biased, then it's irrelevant. --BobHammero _ASS 08:10, 2 May 2006 (BST)

and evey one who hasn't been in direct conflict with amazing over the last month is biased agianst ASS?--Vista ^W! 09:49, 2 May 2006 (BST)

Some people we simply don't know anything about. --BobHammero _ASS 18:47, 2 May 2006 (BST)

In the interest of expediting this ridiculous thing, we've asked Brizth to arbitrate, and are awaiting a response. --BobHammero _ASS 09:33, 3 May 2006 (BST)

I'm willing to arbitrate. It seems, according to Moderation/Arbitration, that Amazing will also accept me as an arbitrator, though I will wait for his confirmation. It will take me some time to wade over all relevant pages. If anyone has any further evidence, now would be perfect time to post it. --Brizth ^{mod T W!} 11:11, 3 May 2006 (BST)

It's fine with me - But I ask you wait until the deadline so I can post all the needed evidence links -- UNLESS you are willing to state that you have already seen enough of what I would link to rule. I'm not going to pretend that no one else has seen the pages/conversations I'd link. -- Amazing 19:59, 3 May 2006 (BST)

I can wait until the deadline, or maybe day before deadline. Because of time differences we might be on-line at quite different times. So don't leave it until the last hour.
Concerning the would-be linked pages: While I probably have seen them, I would still like to have the links. I might have missed something. --Brizth ^{mod T W!} 22:34, 3 May 2006 (BST)

I'd like to note that we'll also need enough time to respond to whatever "evidence" Amazing dredges up - which reply he'll likely want to reply to, and then us to him again, and so on and so forth. I haven't talked this over with my partner just yet, but for myself I'd like to see evidence-gathering capped a few days before the deadline for ruling - say, on the 7th or 8th. --Jimbo Bob _ASS 23:51, 3 May 2006 (BST)

Very well. 00:00, 8 May 2006 (BST) is the Deadline for submitting evidence. I will then make my decision on either 9^th or 10^th, depending on my timetable. That should give both parties plenty of time to respond to whatever evidence surfaces. --Brizth ^{mod T W!} 00:18, 4 May 2006 (BST)

Uh. No. It's may 10th as per the deadline on the Arbitration page. -- Amazing 00:27, 4 May 2006 (BST)

No, that's when the case has to be closed. As in, has to reach an agreement. The 8^th is to give both parties sufficient time to respond to each others evidence, and to give me some time actually check the evidence after that. --Brizth ^{mod T W!} 00:40, 4 May 2006 (BST)

I'm not going to aknowledge an end date that shaves two days off of the previously stated and agreed upon end point. The 10th has already been established as the date when things need to be resolved - and that means it's the date when judgement would take place. All evidence would, as expected, need to be in before the judgement, and since that's the 10th, the 8th is not an acceptable deadline. I may be done before the 10th, but I'm not losing two days when I do have other things to do and the May 10th date involved ALL these cases, and shaving off days sets the precident that any case's May 10th deadline could be upped with very little notice. The deadline, as previously stated, is the 10th. -- Amazing 01:38, 4 May 2006 (BST)

Amazing, I understand you're desperate to try and wring one of your hollow, pathetic "victories" out of this unsupportable case by throwing a crapload of your supposed evidence at it and not giving us (or the arbitrator, for that matter) sufficient time to read, analyse, and respond to it, but don't expect us to go along with it. ASS categorically refuses any sort of schedule that permits new material to be filed until 0.0001 seconds before the ruling. If, for whatever reason, you think you need more time than the 8th, then explain why and we'll see if we can compromise - but trying to unilaterally declare what the rules are going to be here is simply not acceptable. --Jimbo Bob _ASS 02:36, 4 May 2006 (BST)

Deadline's already the 10th. No discussion needed. As per the 'victories', take a look at my case against GANKBUS that resulted in their page being toned down. I also said the Arb was more than welcome to rule now if he thinks he's seen enough. -- Amazing 02:40, 4 May 2006 (BST)

I'd like to point out to you, Amazing, that the deadline for the RESULT is 1400 on the 10th. The announcement on the arb page says nothing about when the evidence is due by. That, presumeably, would be up to the arbitrator. I would suggest less talking and more gathering. -Wyn ^(talk!) 02:50, 4 May 2006 (BST)

Your hostility and ignoring of the FACT that it was said I had until the 10th makes me reconsider your ability to arbitrate. The date is the 10th, not the 8th, and if we can't agree on this I don't think this will work. It makes me wonder why specifically you are trying to cause trouble on this. (Since it was the 10th before, changing it is the instigation.) -- Amazing 06:41, 4 May 2006 (BST)

You know what - I don't need to think about this any longer. If you insist on upping the end date you will be dismissed. I don't see an alternative since you are acting quite strangely in a manner that cuts down on the time I was given to make my case. Your insistance that "The 10th was when it ends, but I'm giving you a new end date for your case!" with such rabid tenacity makes me uneasy about your intentions. The original date was the 10th, I'm stating that should STAY the end date. You want to change it for no reason, and you defend that proposition with such vigor that it defies reason. -- Amazing 06:42, 4 May 2006 (BST)

You're more than welcome to reconsider my ability to arbitrate, as I am not arbitrating this case. There needs to be time for rebuttal, which your fourteen hour time frame for providing evidence does not necessarily facilitate. Your rabid tenacity about dragging things out to the last moment suggests that you want to 'win' by default. As I have said, I suggest that you gather your evidence instead of complaining about how things are going to be. From Moderation/Arbitration: All open cases in wikigate must reach an agreement by May 10th, 14h GMT. If this doesn't happen, Amazing, Scinfaxi and Zaru will be in on deciding who wins and loses. Do you want that? -Wyn ^(talk!) 06:50, 4 May 2006 (BST)

Consider my one link the entirety of my evidence if you believe you have seen enough. If not, abide by the Mat 10th deadline. You and I both know it was not intended that an arbitrator would come into a case and set their own date in the face of that deadline. Heck, you could've said May 4th. I don't forsee myself NEEDING those extra days, but if I do - they will be there and they will be available for me to use. Your allegation that I somehow magically think that if I have enough time I'll miraculously win by default also shows slight signs of bias, here. You're assuming my intentions and motivations are, by nature, wrong. That's a bit offputting. -- Amazing 07:03, 4 May 2006 (BST)

(Got a little mixed up as to who the Arb was for a bit there, but all points remain the same.) -- Amazing 07:07, 4 May 2006 (BST)

Hilarity! Why are you so totally incapable of understanding that the May (note the "y") 10 deadline is only for the final resolution, and does not preclude any earlier resolution or deadline? My gut tells me stupidity. Oh, and one more spelling fix: "accurate" is not spelled "o-f-f-p-u-t-t-i-n-g". Something to remember. --Jimbo Bob _ASS 07:34, 4 May 2006 (BST)

You're so hilarious that my head actually exploded and had to be re-assembled by gray mice in tiny lab coats. -- Amazing 07:14, 7 May 2006 (BST)

And you're so stupid I'm ignoring you now. --Jimbo Bob _ASS 23:32, 7 May 2006 (BST)

Wish that was true. I'm not that lucky. -- Amazing 00:33, 8 May 2006 (BST)

Posting whatever evidence you had probably would have taken about a tenth of the effort it took to post all of these responses arguing about time it will take to post the evidence you have. How hard is it to post a link, exactly? --Cinnibar 00:15, 9 May 2006 (BST)

Sadly Amazing is immune to logic and would never consider such an elegant solution. -- Rueful 00:21, 9 May 2006 (BST)

...And now the 8th is here, and still all you have for evidence is "OMG, there page is insulting me!!1". Y'know, just like yours is insulting us. Mm, that's good hypocrisy! --Jimbo Bob _ASS 01:03, 9 May 2006 (BST)

Yeah it takes more time to look up links than to write a sentence. WHOA, logic! And Snatherson - I dare you to blow-by-blow compare your insults with the imaginary ones you see on the CDF page. Go for it. -- Amazing 02:57, 9 May 2006 (BST)

The Ruling

First of all:

• Amazing dismissing Arbitrator: Denied.
• Parties coming to agreement on their own: Apparently not.
• Parties having petty arguments on this very page: Hell yes.

Anyway, after reading absolutely too many pages of flaming, trolling, nitpicking, name-calling, mud-slinging and whatnot, I came to following conclusion: Both parties have taken an in-game hostility into wiki, attacking other party in multiple occasions, starting afresh after previous feud had died down. Keep in-game hostility in the fucking game. Don't spill it to wiki. The whole wiki/game thing is clearly shown in following quote from now-deleted AmazingResign template:

...if Amazing resigns from the CDF and allows ASS to repeatedly kill him that this situation can be resolved.

For creating the AmazingResign template and constantly harassing Amazing in other ways (seemingly for their whole wiki existence), Jimbo Bob and BobHammero will both receive a warning. I belive this will be their first, so no banning of users will take place.

As for the group pages... No wiki rules were broken, and as the guidelines mark group pages as allowed to be POV, no punisments will be issued. But see below for further instuctions.

Oh and just for the thought for both parties. The following is lifted from Wikipedia:

Do not stop other editors from enjoying Wikipedia by making threats, nitpicking good-faith edits to different articles, repeated personal attacks or posting personal information.

Orders

Specifically for ASS: Do not attack wiki-user/ud-player Amazing, attack ud-character Amazing instead. Attempts to agitate other wiki members against wiki-Amazing or CDF will not be tolerated.

User & User talk

Let's keep it simple: Stay Away. Do not post on each other's user pages. Do not post on each other's talk pages. You may put whatever you want to your own User page, as long as it is not forbitten by normal wiki rules (no impersonations etc.)

Other (talk) pages

Keep away from each other. If the matter doesn't directly concern you (vandal banning, deletion...), don't answer to each other. Don't start or continue one of those endless cycles of trolling and flaming we have seen recently (including this page). It's quite obvious from numerous "conversation" that neither ASS members nor Amazing can be polite to each other.

Group pages

First of all, yes, I know about editing guidelines. But previous arbitration decisions have established that arbitration can and will overrule the guidelines.

Assault on Stupid Survivors: All inflammatory comments about Amazing shall be removed. These include calling him "zerger, troll, hypocrite, infantile prick, and libeler" and Amazing supposedly saying "I.. am.. stupid" or any other non-provable phrase I might have missed. All references to "confirmed zergers", Amazing or other, should be removed, if no definitive proof is provided. Screenshots can not be considered proof, as they are trivial to fake.

Crossman Defense Force: The section concerning hostile groups shall be restored to the state similar it was before: [1]. Addendum: Also, ASS should be referred as ASS or Assault on Stupid Survivors.

Both parties will stay away from other group's page, complete. This includes NPOV section. If they see something that seems to break this arbitration decision, take it directly to Vandal Banning. If you think the NPOV section needs some clarification, contact mod. Vista should be handling CDF's NPOV anyway, if I remember correctly. ASS' NPOV section seems to be ok for now.

You have 24 hours to do this on your own, after that others will clean up the pages.

Templates

Template:ASSaultOnAmazing will be deleted. ASS can create a new template, if they so desire, to show support for their group. The new template shall not contain any direct reference to Amazing. This includes the template name and any pictures used. A suitable text would be something like:

This user or group supports  ASS and their ASSault on CDF

Reason: While the template is not insulting per se, it is causing unduly amounts of wiki-drama, and can easily be replaced with a more neutral alternative.

Template:AmazingOhNoes will be deleted. New, generic, this user is targeted by that user on arbitration case template will be created. I'll create it later today, if someone doesn't get to it first. Is now available at Template:ArbitrationTarget.
Reason: Same reason as above.

Template:AmazingResign was already deleted by community vote, see Moderation/Deletions#Template:AmazingResign.

--Brizth ^{mod T W!} 18:00, 10 May 2006 (BST)

Questions

First of all, I'd like to thank you for agreeing to take on this arbitration case. I would also like to apologize for any undue stress that I've caused on this wiki. That said, a couple things I'd like to have clarified, if you would please:

• I went about editing the ASS page extensively, to take out any possibly unacceptable material not directly game-related. Is the current state acceptable? I removed and modified everything that you mentioned, and everything related to that as well, but I didn't change things such as the trophy list (aside from the zerger notes), because it's directly game-related. Please let me know if the page needs to be changed more.
• I have a brief question regarding the CDF page and the state that it's supposed to be returned to. If you look carefully, you'll see that they list us as "Assault of Stupid Survivors," a typo that we assume is deliberate, since they ignored our repeated requests to fix it. Will they be required to accurately refer to us?
• I created the ASSaultSupporter template to replace the ASSaultOnAmazing template. I assume this is acceptable; if it isn't, please let me know and I'll change it.
• Finally, I recently created the NoMoreDrama template. If you are as fed up with all of the wiki drama as I am, feel free to use it. :-)

Thanks again for your help, and please let me know if I need to make any further changes.

--Bob Hammero _ASS 21:00, 10 May 2006 (BST)

• Seems to be ok.
• Ah, missed that one. Yes. I will add a note to ruling.
• Excellent.
• Perfect.

--Brizth ^{mod T W!} 21:13, 10 May 2006 (BST)

Cool. Thanks again for your help! Hopefully we won't need your services again. :-) --Bob Hammero _ASS 21:19, 10 May 2006 (BST)

Needs to be moved to appropriate section. Glad to see this is resolved. --V2Blast 23:10, 10 May 2006 (BST)

Done. --Brizth ^{mod T W!}

First, I'd like to second my partner in thanking you for arbitrating this and apologizing for any excessive strain I in particular may have been responsible for. My question is this: is it really necessary for the ban on responses in third-party talk pages to be total? On the Main Page talk, for example, I think I've done a decent job of being civil, and I think that the back-and-forth there may be useful for people seeking to understand the issue being discussed. Being entirely forbidden to respond to another users arguments, even in a civil manner, seems to me to be excessive. --Jimbo Bob _ASS 00:28, 11 May 2006 (BST)

You are right (partially) about the main page talk. Both of you were civil and polite, but the end of that discussion was already verging to trolling. Just a few more replies and it would have been a heated battle about linguistics. Which would probably have ended at vandal banning/arbitration page. And since your and other Bob's previous communications to Amazing (and his to you) have not been so polite nor civil, the decision stands. I will reconsider after some time has passed and both sides have abided by the decision. --Brizth ^{mod T W!} 01:23, 11 May 2006 (BST)

I can see why you might think that, but I assure you it's not true. I did get into a whole flamewar on the vandal-banning page, but I recognized that that was inappropriate, apologized for it, and immediately put an end to my participation in it. If that Main Page conversation had taken off in a trollish direction, I'd have put an end to it, too, and much more swiftly.

Anyway, the probationary period sounds like an acceptable compromise. It was the indefinite ban that really bugged me. Final request I'd have is that the length of said probationary period be formalized, so we're not left in a "Have I been good long enough to talk yet?" limbo. --Jimbo Bob _ASS 01:41, 11 May 2006 (BST)

Hmm, I thought I had already answered this. I was thinking of two weeks, the standard wiki time for pretty much anything. So, without further ado:
Two weeks, starting 10:14, 11 May 2006 (BST).
--Brizth ^{mod T W!} 10:14, 11 May 2006 (BST)

After that period, if either party goes back to the previous behavior, shall a new case be filed or will this one be resurrected? I don't know why "stay away from eachother and be civil" needs to have a time limit, anyway. -- Amazing 19:17, 11 May 2006 (BST)

Why not? while being civil is always a fine trait, permanently forcing people not to interact, not so much. And if only the keep civil part is parmanent giving somebody a warning after making one bad comment a year after a arbitration case is good either, if after the two weeks things return to normal, it isn't needed anymore, if they revert back to what we had the last month, asking brizth to re-aply it seems easy to me.--Vista ^W! 19:26, 11 May 2006 (BST)

Vista pretty much got it (If I understood correctly. Do you only have one full stop in your whole reply?). Permanent non-interaction rules can lead to awkward situations. Anyway, if either side goes back to previous behaviour, it will be considered breaking arbitration ruling. And for that we have the written rules on Moderation/Arbitration page. --Brizth ^{mod T W!} 19:40, 11 May 2006 (BST)

Two, but I compensate with six comma's.--Vista ^W! 19:51, 11 May 2006 (BST)

Ah, but they're in the wrong places (where periods should be). And I'm happy there's only one case left. I'm tired of all the drama. --V2Blast 22:54, 16 May 2006 (BST)

that was the joke... But yeah me too--Vista ^W! 23:14, 16 May 2006 (BST)