UDWiki:Administration/Arbitration/Banana Bear4 vs Legend X (2)

That's Why I did your Wife vs. Legend X

Hey gang. Sorry to be back here. Again, but there is a small issue that I don't think will worked out without some loverly Misconbitration. Heres the issue. The BME talk page has discussion wiped. Sometimes parts are left on the page out of context, changing meaning and such. The leader of the BME, Legend X, refuses to use an archive. This does not help anyone. It creates confusion, it is misleading, and it hurts the groups credibility. Here are a few examples of this happening, set to that bad boy song. Bad Boy Bad Boy What you gon' do? What you gon' do? When they come for you And this is why I don't think it will be worked out without Arbitration. Thank you arbitration team. -That's Why I did your Wife 06:36, 31 July 2006 (BST)

I'd be willing to arbitrate, but we know Legend X isn't going to choose someone who caught him in the act, would he? –Xoid ^S•T•FU! 06:55, 31 July 2006 (BST)

I'd be willing as well, but my psychic powers are warning me in a fashion similar to what Xoid said. Cyberbob  Talk  06:59, 31 July 2006 (BST)

Accepted, my science debunks your psychics for 6 damage, your armor soaked 2.-That's Why I did your Wife 07:02, 31 July 2006 (BST)

Aah. Another NW fan, I see. Cyberbob  Talk  07:06, 31 July 2006 (BST)

I would be willing to arbitrate, but I will place gold in all of your baskets if Legend X picks me. After all, I'm the one who called him on his misuse of pronouns. –Bob Hammero ^{Mod•B'crat•T•A} 08:00, 31 July 2006 (BST)

I am willing to arbitrate. I seem to be a neutral party and have had no contact with either person.-- Krazy Monkey ^W! 09:28, 31 July 2006 (BST)

There is NOTHING to arbitrate. The wiki clearly says it is "bad form" not to archive. It doesn't say it's mandatory. If you idiots wouldn't spam my personal wiki page with stupidity or post on our group age 15 times a day (i.e. get lives of your own) tehn everybodywould be happy. I will tell you ALL now that anything Banana bear posts on our discussion page will be deleted for eternity. I don't care if he is just saying "hello". you guys seem obsessed with me for some reason, and the BME as a sidenote. I am thinking seriously of stepping down as spokesperson which would make me the 3rd leader of BME to lose out to vandals and asshats. That's a really sad thing that you mods don't seem to respect. "Spam a page long enough and you will win" seems to be your goal. It hasn't worked yet but we will NOT archive and will continue to delete unimportant spam on our discussion page. We consider spam to be the 400th time someone asks to archive. We already said no 399 times. Aksing again is spam. We will also consider spam when mods for no apparent reason think it's okay to give us grammar lessons we didn't ask for. Stuff like that Legend X 14:32, 31 July 2006 (BST) By the way, how in GOD'S NAME did Banana Bear (a serial vandalizer) get to be a moderator. This whole thing is ridiculous and stacked obviously. This is the same IDIOT who took me toarbitratio nfor calling him a "homo". Don't you people hve lives? Legend X 14:37, 31 July 2006 (BST)

If anyone is going to arbitrate (even though there is clearly no basis for a case being brought) then it will be Librarian Brent or nobody else. he's the only one I trust to be fair. Seems you morons are all in league with each other anyway. Nerds Legend X 14:38, 31 July 2006 (BST)

Idiot. Banana Bear isn't a mod. And about your charge of nerdism, we aren't the ones getting pissed over something on the Internet. Cheers! Cyberbob  Talk  14:41, 31 July 2006 (BST)

By the way, I can save everyone the trouble of an arbitration case by posting the wiki's own guideline below. As you can see I have done NOTHING illegal:

• Group talk pages, like their main page, are under the ownership of their group. Group leaders are allowed to remove dead conversation, or any other action, under the provison that they do not break any current established content restrictions, as above. However, it is considered extremely bad form to wipe conversations without leaving a record, especially on Group talk pages, and we recommend that groups instead create Archive sub-pages in which to store dead conversations and the like. Legend X 14:48, 31 July 2006 (BST)

And sign your posts, while you're at revising your life. Cyberbob  Talk  14:44, 31 July 2006 (BST)

NOWHERE on the wiki does it say it is illegal to not sign your posts. Nowhere on the wiki does it say if you don't sign your posts 5 moderators will spam your page. Legend X 14:47, 31 July 2006 (BST)

Lucky it doesn't say it's illegal to be retarded. Otherwise you'd be long gone. Cyberbob  Talk  14:48, 31 July 2006 (BST)

Arbitration can overrule any section of the wiki's currently established guidelines, so that one ain't gonna work, "X". Regardless, you have shown yourself to be unimaginably more biased than any person who has ever gotten into an arguement with you. When you cannot get your way, you twist other's words and fabricate stories about them "wiki zerging". –Xoid ^S•T•FU! 15:01, 31 July 2006 (BST)

Where does Legend X's character sleep? He sounds like an Amazing guy! -- Rueful 14:49, 31 July 2006 (BST)

Despite the fact that I'm one of the users that would like to see the BME use an archive page I have to agree with Legend X that there is no reason for an arb case here simply because the rules are pretty clear on this that it is only recomended to create an archive. The main problem I had was that BME's talk page said they were using an archive and they were not. The wording on their talk page has now been changed and no-longer references an archive so I can't really see the problem. Oh. And on a side note. I'm pretty sure that it does say somewhere (I'm just not sure where) that you have to sign comments. --Tethran 14:50, 31 July 2006 (BST)

Tethran - I have no problem signing posts and always try to. However everytime I don't I get like 20 messages. It's really quite pathetic that they are following every post I make so closely. Legend X 14:56, 31 July 2006 (BST)

Yes, but impersonation has been committed here on not one, not two, not three, but FIVE TIMES. I think it's fair to say that mandating an archive here is more than reasonable. As it's obvious Legend X twists the truth as he sees fit. –Xoid ^S•T•FU! 15:01, 31 July 2006 (BST)

I have ***PROOF*** that this is Amazing! Rasher 14:57, 31 July 2006 (BST)

Really? Can we see it? Cyberbob  Talk  14:57, 31 July 2006 (BST)

You must be new here Rasher 14:59, 31 July 2006 (BST)

...? Cyberbob  Talk  15:01, 31 July 2006 (BST)

This is just stupid. Can I bring a case against Rasher for defaming me? I am not Amazing. This is just dumb. Xoid you know there was no impersonation. I deleted annoying posts. Bottom line. If the meaning of those left up changed because of it I apologize. Legend X 15:11, 31 July 2006 (BST)

Actually, deleting part of posts, but leaving others, is impersonation. And you've done it five times. Cyberbob  Talk  15:14, 31 July 2006 (BST)

When was the last time I did it? I bet it was a long time ago. I have a system now where I won't do that. I realzie that was wrong. Now i just delete the offending vandalism/spam Legend X 15:17, 31 July 2006 (BST)

So? You were never reported for vandalism. Technically, you still could be. Cyberbob  Talk  15:20, 31 July 2006 (BST)

Since it doesn't appear anyone has chosen yet, I would be willing to arbitrate--Gage 15:25, 31 July 2006 (BST)

1. 1 there is NO case for arbitration. #2 if you want to go through the motions Librarian Brent will be moderatiing. Nobody else Legend X 15:26, 31 July 2006 (BST)

Seeing as how LibrarianBrent hasn't made any contributions to the wiki since early June, he may have some trouble arbitrating. -Blig 15:35, 31 July 2006 (BST)

That's like picking a dead guy to be your lawyer. I'm willing to arbitrate since I don't know any of you and can't have a biased opinion. Sonny Corleone ^{WTF RRF ASS} 15:36, 31 July 2006 (BST)

I'm still willing to arbitrate. I'm probably the least biased here so if you want a fair arbitration I'd be the best active choice. -- Krazy Monkey ^W! 19:17, 31 July 2006 (BST)

X, Brent hasn't been active here since June 9, so that probably ain't gonna work. Also, you don't really have a choice. The guidelines clearly state that "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 procedings."

If you can't get LibrarianBrent to respond within a few days, I'm going to overturn that request and you'll have to pick someone else. I'm not letting this case stall for weeks as Wikigate did. –Bob Hammero ^{Mod•B'crat•T•A} 19:49, 31 July 2006 (BST)

Hey there arby team. Just one thing I'd like to ask of you, could somebody move most of the stuff above this post to the talk page, I mean, the stuff that is really tangential discussion, as Its sort of a mess up there, though I'm glad to see there is interest in helping sort this out. To my dear opponent I would simply ask that he pick an acceptable arbitrator who is active. If you are correct and there is no case for arbitration, please let us expedite a decision confirming this, if you are incorrect, then picking an arbitrator will help put this whole thing to bed. Thanks -That's Why I did your Wife 23:13, 31 July 2006 (BST)

Banana Bear brought the case of arbitration because we weren't archiving. Read his post at the top. Since archiving is CLEARLY not a rule then there is no case for arbitration. YOU get Librarian Brent. I'm busy. Don't put someone o nyour list and thenget mad that I picked him. This arbitration case has NOTHING to do with impersonationas Xpid has tried to steer the original intent away once he realzied there was no case. I am done with this. Do whatever you want if you aren't going to respect my wishes. Like you guys respect anything Legend X 16:47, 1 August 2006 (BST)

Oh what a crock of shit. You have twisted people's words on five separate occasions, and yet you think anyone can trust your version of events? FUCK. NO. Check the impersonation rules out, imbecile. Selectively editing someone's comments counts as impersonation. Arbitration is about where two people disagree about how something should be done. There is certainly disagreement here, and thus there is a case for arbitration. There's a case for vandalism too, for that matter. "We" didn't put LibrarianBrent on the list. He did, and then he disappeared. Now that your arguements and stupidity have been neatly cleaved through, I hope to god that you'll just shut up before you continue to sabotage your case any further with your uninformed and inane assumptions. –Xoid ^S•T•FU! 16:54, 1 August 2006 (BST)

Hey, if there were an archive of the original statements by users, there would be no confusion about what they said, but when you keep around parts of statements, everything turns into a big mess, and your groups credibility is destroyed. I'm sure we could find another arbitrator mutually agreeable, if my dear opponent is correct and there is no case, any arbitrator will see that and rule as such, if there is a case, then I'm sure they can competently sort this out. -That's Why I did your Wife 17:29, 1 August 2006 (BST)

Banana Bear is taking me to arbitration for not archiving.. correct? Isn't that what he says above? The wiki says that archiving is NOT mandatory. hence there is no case. if you want to now go back several months for things I did before I realzied the do's and dont's of the wiki then that is fine but there is NO NEED to go to arbitration because I admit it. I took some people's posts and deleted portions of it. I haven't done that in a long time because another mod told me months ago that it was wrong. I have stopped and i promise not to do it again. I will however delete people spamming our board, giving grammar or signing instruction or being a pain in the general butt AND THIS IS OUR RIGHT. read the wiki's wording on group pages. I've posted it ad nauseum. I'm done. if you want to take action against me for something i did a long time ago i can't stop you. i am guilty. but you must admit i haven't done it since told not to and there is no mandatory rule on archiving. i'm done. from now o nyou guys just do whatever you want and leave me out of it. ban me, warn me, whatever. i obviously can't stop you. but just leave BME's group page and my personal wiki page alone. Start your own legend x is a douche bag page if it makes you feel happy. but above all i hope you get out of your mom's basement and get a life. Legend X 20:49, 1 August 2006 (BST)

Er... we're not the ones spending our time getting pissed off on something over the Internet. Cyberbob  Talk  22:19, 1 August 2006 (BST)

Legend, I know your upset but just listen if you could do me that one favor. A lot of what I think is bothering you, signing instructions, messages showing up again and again, all these things could be avoided if you archived posts, that way, so if you and I had a discussion about a BME related issue, and then it was resolved someone else wouldn't need to have that same discussion, they could look at the archive, and see that everything was ok. We aren't trying to crucify you, we're trying to make things better. For everyone. -That's Why I did your Wife 22:39, 1 August 2006 (BST)

Legend X, if you can't get Brent to respond within two days time, starting 00:47, 2 August 2006 (BST), you will need to pick someone new to arbitrate. –Bob Hammero ^{Mod•B'crat•T•A} 00:47, 2 August 2006 (BST)

Possible Arbitrators

here is a list of people who are willing to arbitrate as it is a little hard to go through the text and find them:

1. A Bothan Spy
2. Bob Hammero
3. Krazy Monkey
4. Gage
5. Sonny Corleone
6. Zod Rhombus
7. The General

--Gage 03:06, 1 August 2006 (BST) EDIT: I've put the other two guys who've volunteered into the list. -- Krazy Monkey ^W! 14:54, 1 August 2006 (BST)

I'd be willing to arbitrate. I don't know either user or interact with them in-game. I could approach this with a level head and no flaming. --Zod Rhombus 22:17, 31 July 2006 (BST)

I'd be willing to arbitrate, I don't know either user any more than what i've seen on this page.--The General ^{T Sys U! P! F!} 08:54, 1 August 2006 (BST)

Legend X, you've had your two days as I outlined. Since you haven't been able to get Brent to respond, and he was the only person that you were willing to have serve as your arbitrator, the arbitrator for this case will be Krazy Monkey. –Bob Hammero ^{Mod•B'crat•T•A} 07:06, 4 August 2006 (BST)

If my help is still wanted I'd be able to arbitrate, sorry for not getting back on this sooner. --LibrarianBrent 21:48, 4 August 2006 (BST)

YES. I want Librarian Brent to do it if at all possible Legend X 00:45, 7 August 2006 (BST)

Whoah, the man himself! Welcome back. Not sure what should happen now, because as you can see, I appointed Krazy Monkey. I didn't think you were even around here. –Bob Hammero ^{Mod•B'crat•T•A} 22:17, 4 August 2006 (BST)

One arbitrator. Two arbitrators? ooooooh. Maybe the two can work out how to sort this out. And thanks for coming back to help out Brent. -That's Why I did your Wife 01:24, 7 August 2006 (BST)

I asked for Librarian Brent. I just don't think anyone else will give me a fair chance as they seem predetermined Legend X 16:09, 7 August 2006 (BST)

Well I'm afraid that I've been appointed as Arbitrator. All I need you to do is counter what Banana Bear has said and then its over. -- Krazy Monkey ^W! 08:13, 8 August 2006 (BST)

Arbitration

Ok lets get this thing started. Please place all evidence in the form of links under the appropriate heading below. You will be given a chance to counter the others evidence so please dont respond to the evidence they provide until that time. After the countering arguements I will review evidence and your responses and will decide on the best course of action. -- Krazy Monkey ^W! 11:02, 4 August 2006 (BST)

Evidence from That's Why I did your Wife

The BME talk page has discussion wiped. Sometimes parts are left on the page out of context, changing meaning and such. The leader of the BME, Legend X, refuses to use an archive. This does not help anyone. It creates confusion, it is misleading, and it hurts the groups credibility. Here are a few examples of the worst examples of this, set to that bad boy song. Bad Boy Bad Boy What you gon' do? What you gon' do? When they come for you If the full statements were archived, it would allow users to see what everyone really said, now however it just is bad for everyone. While there is no rule saying that they are required to have an archive, it is simply stubborness on the part of my opponent that is keeping this group from having the archive, which does no good for the group. -That's Why I did your Wife 17:23, 4 August 2006 (BST)

Evidence from Legend X

Sorry I just got back in town. I have NO defense for the earlier (long time ago) edits I did. I have come to find out they were illegal (deleting part of a message and leaving part.) and stopped as son as I found this out. The whole process has been an education. I have learned over the months what you can and can't do and I apologize. I promised not to do that again and I haven't. Check the dates of the offenses. The second part - We DO NOT archive and WILL NOT archive and ANYTHING the arbitrator says that mandates we archive will NOT be adhered to becuase the wiki CLEARLY states that we don't have to archive. I am posting the following copied/pasted from THIS WIKI. It should clearly show that there is NO CASE. Also Banana Bear is just an immature troll. He takes me to arbitration weekly just because I won't let him run rampant over our page. It's totally ridiculous. The last time he took to me to arbitration it was because I called him a 'homo'. This giuy is such a loser and has to be the most bored person on earth. I would like this (3rd arbitration case against me) to be the last time he is allowed to do this. It just wastes my time.

Group talk pages, like their main page, are under the ownership of their group. Group leaders are allowed to remove dead conversation, or any other action, under the provison that they do not break any current established content restrictions, as above. However, it is considered extremely bad form to wipe conversations without leaving a record, especially on Group talk pages, and we recommend that groups instead create Archive sub-pages in which to store dead conversations and the like. --Legend X 00:43, 7 August 2006 (BST)

Arbitrator statement

I have read the evidence posted above and I will allow each person to make one counter to the other's evidence as per the arbitration guidelines. After that I will decide what action should be taken. -- Krazy Monkey ^W! 10:31, 7 August 2006 (BST)

Counter from That's Why I did your Wife

While it is true that archiving is not required, it is recommended, and good etiquette. It is not good etiquette to delete dialogue because you don't like the looks of it. If my opponent were only deleting the posts on his talk page, that would be one thing, but by deleting the groups talk page, he is negatively affecting anyone else who may be in the group. I will now provide links to the latest ten instances where my fine opponent has deleted active dialouge.

I did not risk my life on the beaches of Normandy to come back to this country and sit idly by while a bunch of hack politicians whittles away your heritage and mine. quote by- StromThurmond While Legend may argue that there is no need for an archive, as all these edits are saved in the history tab, this is patently untrue, as the history of the entire wiki is periodically purged. My opponent has yet to provide any sort of reason for not using an archive, which makes it clear that this is just stubbornness, rather than reason, that makes him shy away from the archive. In response to accusations that I am attempting to trample this page beneath my iron shod boots, that is purely nonsense, I am driven back to arbitration with Legend X because there has proven no other way to sort out issues with him, on these ocassions. Other attacks on my character are both untrue, and unrelated to the issues at hand. -That's Why I did your Wife 01:20, 8 August 2006 (BST)

Counter from Legend X

I speak for my group. When Banana Bear called us out (we do NOT put BME in our group name in-game due to Banana bear killing our members)I asked the members I could get in touch with to temporarily put BME as the group name. In less than 24 hours we showed up on the official stats page as having 36 members but that wasn't everybody by a long shot. We have a steady membership and have since the beginning (about a year). I speak for our group. We have had 3 speakers before but they got tired of this crap. Banana Bear's player in-game is a known PKer and he kept killing anyone with BME in their profile. Hence we took BME out of our profiles for security. At the same time he started vandalizing our wiki, adding his own $.02, lying, cussing, correcting our spelling ,etc. Very annoying things for a webmaster to have to keep deleting. As I said above - The NRA doesn't let anti-gun nuts write their literature and the BME is not going to let our enemy dictate what we put on our group page. Groups OWN their wiki page. I posted the quote from the wiki above. We use our wiki page for informayional purposes and as a recruiting tool. I DO NOT HAVE to let Banana Bear post on our wiki. EVER. It MAY be in bad form to some but those in the know realize he contributes nothing and we want nothing to do with him. I don't know why the mods can't tell him to stay off our page. He is a spammer and a vandalizer. The factthat he is a jerk doesn't evencome into play for this ruling however. The ruling shopuld be in my favor because the wiki DOES NOT mandate archiving. If he wants to start his own archive on his own page then so be it - but leave ours alone. I hope you give us a fair shot unlike these others a-holes Legend X 14:07, 8 August 2006 (BST)

Also please note that I will seek an appeal from Librarian Brent - the arbitrator I chose and the arbitrator that agreed to hear this case - if the ruling goes against BME. This is not a slap i nthe face of Krazy Monkey (he is still unproven as to whether he will follow the rules or the insane faction) but this is this is our right Legend X 14:11, 8 August 2006 (BST)

Ruling

I have examined all evidence and counters and I have reached my decision. I hearby rule in favour of Legend X and BME.
The Wiki page guidelines state that:
Group talk pages, like their main page, are under the ownership of their group. Group leaders are allowed to remove dead conversation, or any other action, under the provison that they do not break any current established content restrictions, as above. However, it is considered extremely bad form to wipe conversations without leaving a record, especially on Group talk pages, and we recommend that groups instead create Archive sub-pages in which to store dead conversations and the like.
I do not condone his deletions of comments but as it says above the owner may remove dead conversation and the like. I am basing my verdict on the guidelines that are layed out in the Wiki Policy Documents. Banana Bear does not have the authority to make BME keep an archive of old comments and therefore I rule in Legend X's favour. It is bad form to delete the comments but there is no rule against it.
The action that I believe should be taken is as follows:

• Banana Bear is to stop posting on BME's talk page, for 1 month, effective now.
• Neither user is to make direct contact with the other for 1 month. They may post on the same page, but only if their comments in no-way refer to the other or their comments.
  

I also recommend that BME keep some kind of archive to prevent this happening again. This is not a condition of the ruling, it is a suggestion to prevent something like this happening again and as such does not have to be adhered to.
This is my ruling. If any part of it is broken it will be treated as vandalism as per the arbitration policies. -- Krazy Monkey ^W! 15:49, 8 August 2006 (BST)
Addition: Any comments on this ruling should be put on either my talk page or the arbitration talk page as I feel that this page has been filled enough by this case. -- Krazy Monkey ^W! 16:04, 8 August 2006 (BST)
Amendment: I meant to put Banana Bear as banned from posting on BME's talk page for a month not forever. I did orignally have the two statements together but I split them and forgot to add a bit to the end of the first point. Sorry for any confusion. Ammendment is highlighted in bold. -- Krazy Monkey ^W! 23:39, 8 August 2006 (BST)