UDWiki:Administration/Arbitration/Amazing vs Zaruthustra

Ruling

I'm implicated! Hurray! Not sure of what exactly, but hurray! --Zaruthustra-Mod 22:04, 19 April 2006 (BST)

You've been implicated of giving Amazing threatening glances while wearing that dress. WHY DO YOU HATE AMERICA Rasher 22:10, 19 April 2006 (BST)

I just don't really get this, and I think the definition of "harassment" is getting stretched to the limit. I don't remember rules actually saying you can't be mean to people. I mean sure its asinine and childish, but this whole morality police thing is just going to be trouble. Doesn't the fact that we're voting on Locational Language show that we lack any such rules currently? Example:

Not Harassment

This is an Amazing Free Zone All Amazing posts will be deleted.

This template serves a legitimate purpose. It might be directed at a specific user but it exists for use by others and isn't overtly offensive.

Still Not Harassment

	Die in a Fire
	This user wishes Amazing's lovely beard would spontaneously combust.

Now this exists just to inflame tensions, but that still doesn't matter. It doesn't really break any rules that we have per se, and if the user wishes they can just ignore it.

Harassment!

	I'm Gonna Git You Boy
	Yes you. Amazing. From North Carolina. I'm in my car right now. I'm gonna make you bleed.

Now this is what I would call "harassment", in that it goes beyond being mean spirited into the realm of genuinely threatening. For it to be harassment you have to hound them in such a way that they can't reasonably ignore it or cross some pretty extreme bounderies of good taste.

This just looks like we're heading toward some wiki thought police where we coddle users and tell them what they can and can't say. I don't want to do that, and I don't think any of the other mods or users do either. --Zaruthustra-Mod 23:53, 19 April 2006 (BST)

I like how he complains about these templates yet he has one against Grim_s on his page.--Denzel Washington 00:12, 20 April 2006 (BST)

Wow, Zaruthustra, you just totally solved all these arbitration cases pretty much. Want to arbitrate mine? -Banana Bear4 23:56, 19 April 2006 (BST)

The words "conflict of interest" comes to mind. I don't really think people would let me be arbiter for a case I'm in. --Zaruthustra-Mod 00:06, 20 April 2006 (BST)

Aw shucks you and your words/mind, I do agree with what your saying about policy and policing the wiki. -Banana Bear4 00:09, 20 April 2006 (BST)

Ah, excellent templates, Z. --Marluxia 00:35, 20 April 2006 (BST)

Yea hyperbole is great. --Zaruthustra-Mod 01:23, 20 April 2006 (BST)

Zar, you're a total all-out bully using your authority as a device to antagonize me personally. You've shown that here in your "examples" which are little more than ridicule, which you will thinly disguise as 'dude just jokes lol'. -- Amazing 03:14, 20 April 2006 (BST)

My authority to make example templates? I'm not doing anything here in the capacity of moderator. --Zaruthustra-Mod 03:21, 20 April 2006 (BST)

Ah but it makes you less open to reprimand for such "Non-Rule-Violating" personal abuse. -- Amazing 03:23, 20 April 2006 (BST)

This is still a waste of time. If you have charges outside what I've written here I'd enjoy hearing them, otherwise I'm out. And if it makes you feel better we stopped using noamazing, I'm not coming to your house, and I would like to see your beard explode but purely for scientific reasons. --Zaruthustra-Mod 04:05, 20 April 2006 (BST)

Thanks for needlessly furthering the info of where I live, btw. (Oh, and the ridicule. Thanks for the Moderator ridicule on my appearance.) You're aces. -- Amazing 02:52, 22 April 2006 (BST)

You actually released your full address to the public, not just yout state. If it concerns you I'd recommend you change it with your hosting company. --Zaruthustra-Mod 06:12, 22 April 2006 (BST)

I did not release my full address to this Wiki, you looked up the info and posted here. That's a violation on SO MANY LEVELS that it alone should get you completely banned. What's more is you JUST TOLD PEOPLE HOW TO FIND IT. You're just trying to get me more harassment, now. Asshole. -- Amazing 04:14, 26 April 2006 (BST)

For the record, I looked it up independently of Zaruthustra's notification, and any alleged harassment you may accuse me of is strictly independent of Zaruthustra. Timid Dan 20:58, 26 April 2006 (BST)

So essentially this boils down to Amazing wanting Zaruthustra banned for looking up an IP on a whois sight, and posting it on this page. Incase anyone forgot, it's only been 3 weeks since he did the exact same thing The hypocrisy is obvious to anyone with a brain, but since this is amazing, i'll spell it out. Since posting info found using an IP lookup site like [Dnsstuff.com DNSstuff](which has both the search type used by Amazing in the Rasher case, and the one Zar used) is a permaban worthy offence when used against amazing, but perfectly acceptable when used by Amazing. After all to use his own words:

Besides, I don't think that pasting in the reverse IP info of someone (text removes for spage) violates any sort of rule, material or immaterial. -- Amazing 23:54, 5 April 2006 (BST) 

Therefore according to Amazing, Zaruthustra has broken no rule, and I believe should be absolved from wikigate immediately--Bermudez 23:04, 26 April 2006 (BST)

Arbiters

I'm still not sure why I'm here. Umm, hagnat? general? --Zaruthustra-Mod 06:21, 20 April 2006 (BST)

Read the report at the top. It outlines the reasons for your involvement. --Cyberbob240^CDF 08:35, 20 April 2006 (BST)

The only thing I can guess here is that:

A) I made a template that says people can delete things on their user pages.

B) I'm vaguely implicated in the same case as everyboy else without evidence. I dunno. It was really long, I mighta missed it.--Zaruthustra-Mod 16:49, 20 April 2006 (BST)

What makes you such a flippant liar? You created a template specifically saying ANYTHING I POSTED could be removed. "I made a template that says people can delete things on their user pages." Is such a tremendous misrepresentation. -- Amazing 04:18, 21 April 2006 (BST)

Zarutrusta was recently involved in a case of misconduct, wrongly filled by Amazing. There amazing said Zar was bullying him, but that isnt misconduct, since any user can bully other whitout moderation powers. While misconduct was not the better place to discuss this, Arbitration seems to be fine. We shall now wait for amazing to provide 'evidence' on zar's involvement with any harrasing behaviour. --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{[cloned] [mod]} 18:29, 20 April 2006 (BST)

Read the Misconduct page. It says bullying by a Moderator can be reported as Misconduct. -- Amazing 04:18, 21 April 2006 (BST)

Since this is such a wide-ranging case, and due to the amount of griefers connected to it, I feel the outcome of this will have major impacts affecting in-game play. Therefore, due to the history of personal attacks from both sides and my effort to try and keep the game viable and enjoyable for other members of our group, Crossman Defense Force, I would not support Lucero Cappell as an impartial arbitrator. His user page promotes a biased opinion was well as past comments.--Zod Rhombus 16:42, 20 April 2006 (BST)

What could possibly be done on the wiki that would have in-game consequences? Rasher 17:05, 20 April 2006 (BST)

Yours and others' dissatisfaction with Amazing on the wiki has grown into a griefer movement in-game. This has caused the PKing of players not associated with Amazing except to reside in the same group. As a leader of CDF, I want to ensure a good gameplay experience in-game for the members of my group. I realize the wiki and game are separate entities. However, the point of my post was to show my belief of Lucero Cappell's inability to have an unbiased opinion on arbitration. --Zod Rhombus 18:48, 20 April 2006 (BST)

Guess what, no one cares what you think. Scinfaxi 18:57, 20 April 2006 (BST)

Also this is making it worse, not better. Rasher 18:59, 20 April 2006 (BST)

Nope, I see your point, and I suspected this would be the case. I do believe I could be unbiased, but I can certainly understand your opinion. I'm just curious as to what the affecting in-game dealie-do has to do with me. The only contact I've had with Amazing has been reviving him two or three times. --Lucero Capell 18:52, 20 April 2006 (BST)

Sorry, I didn't mean direct involvement in-game. I meant the reprocussions of any arbitration decision will affect the way the griefers deal with our group, positively or negatively. I've made my statement, I will bow out of this matter now. --Zod Rhombus 22:04, 20 April 2006 (BST)

Guess what, NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS ZOD. Damn, let Amazing settle his own fueds for once. Why are you even talking about picking an arbitrator? Is this about the time I called you Amazing's girlfriend? Scinfaxi 18:54, 20 April 2006 (BST)

Typical. --Zod Rhombus 21:54, 20 April 2006 (BST)

GANKBUS and associates appreciate your useless and irrelevant condescending response. Rasher 22:52, 20 April 2006 (BST)

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

I will accept Brent if we can just get this over with. --Zaruthustra-Mod 04:33, 21 April 2006 (BST)

Seeing the horrible mess that's been made of my admittedly leingthy case, I'd say that at this point I really have no other choice, ethically, than to end it in a reasonably quick way. I agree to Brent arbitrating. The only one who's ever banned me. Hahaha... O_O - But yes, I don't really think that my furthering my case beyond its current form will do anything but cause MORE spam with the same non-result I've gotten thusfar in such instances. -- Amazing 04:38, 21 April 2006 (BST)

To be fair he's also the only mod who's ever ruled for you, and given the chatter off wiki he's fairly sympathetic to you. Honestly at this point warn demod whatever. I'm tired of dealing with this. Its not why I come here. --Zaruthustra-Mod 04:40, 21 April 2006 (BST)

lol. Other Mods SURE HAVE ruled for me. Wow. That came straight out'cha butt. As for being sympathetic.. I don't know about that. I think people like you are just tremendously biased, so anyone who is capable of being fair to someone you hate seems sympathetic. That's just my personal opinion. -- Amazing 05:08, 21 April 2006 (BST)

Okay, you can make your arguments now. --LibrarianBrent 04:55, 21 April 2006 (BST)

Not posting my case yet, but I'm looking for the Template you created specifically saying anything I posted could/should be deleted. Mind dropping a link? Looks like you erased records of it from the Wiki, but I could be searching the wrong words. -- Amazing 05:11, 21 April 2006 (BST)

Yea, my deleting records is impossible. If I follow you correctly you're talking about this conversation. I'm also pretty sure we've done this dance before, unless you want to shift it from misconduct to "harassment". --Zaruthustra-Mod 05:15, 21 April 2006 (BST)

Sorry.... Template:AmazingFreeZone --Sirens^{T RR} 05:18, 21 April 2006 (BST)

And it was not Zar who made it a template. I made it a template when a user asked for it. --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{[cloned] [mod]} 05:20, 21 April 2006 (BST)

There was a larger version, was there not? -- Amazing 05:38, 21 April 2006 (BST)

I don't remember. I only found that because I had it on my talk page at some point, and I sifted through the history. --Sirens^{T RR} 05:41, 21 April 2006 (BST)

I'll get on the links tomorrow (At least, the ones that haven't been cleared from the log in the recent purge. How nice.) when my brain stops smoking from the Bizzarro logic of most of the folks here -- and the fact that most everyone is after me here while I believe only one fucking person is saying anything against the actions of anyone but me. (Seriously folks - you can't look at this chaos and say I'm the problem here. Unless you're working backward from "I hate Amazing", of course.) -- Amazing 06:00, 21 April 2006 (BST)

This is all going to take forever. I'm burnt out on all this bullshit that Moderators are allowing to continue - I'm going to drop some info here, but it'll be slow going as I say. I'm taking a mini-hiatus from the Wiki for CERTAIN times I occasionally visited, instead coming here only during one point of the night for quick check-ins to see who's saying what about me now.

Holy 2 page response batman! Let me just take a moment to get my head right for this. Ok. We're good. Lets do this thing. --Zaruthustra-Mod 06:04, 22 April 2006 (BST)

That said, Zar threatened to ban me for talking on a Mod action page, calling it a 'little game', and was told he was wrong to do that by another Moderator. One need only check the past posts of the Misconduct page, this page itself, and the current petition to get me BANNED FROM THIS WIKI for being controversial at best. Zar has been a voice specificially against me in many, many, many instances. This all goes to my original report, and my re-stated case here that Zar is a complete all-out bully using his Moderator status in an inappropriate manner, while also CONDUCTING HIMSELF IN A MANNER VERY UNBEFITTING ANYONE IN A POSITION OF AUTHORITY.

Ok, first point. I never said I was going to ban you for talking. I said I was going to ban the next person who trolled in a vandalism report on the page. Out of line but not targeted at you, no evidence anyhow. Moving on. Guilty as charged, I don't like you. I'm not required to. You haven't put up compelling evidence to prove I've been using my moderator status to intimidate you or systematically harassing you. In fact you already lost a case for it on misconduct. And no, putting my name down on a non-binding user petition does not count as abusing my power. I'd say you're developing a persecution complex but I think we're so far beyond that now anyways. --Zaruthustra-Mod 06:04, 22 April 2006 (BST)

The links below are mostly here it show un-modlike behavior when he interacts specifically with me. Some are more damning than others, but keep in mind I'm not saying each link is a big offense in and of itself. The body of 'work' collectively speaks for itself.

Ok... lets see this... again. --Zaruthustra-Mod 06:04, 22 April 2006 (BST)

Zar is listed as an arbitrator. this was his responce when I asked if he ever went there. (Note specifically the lack of commitment to the well-being of the Wiki and its users.)

I stand by that. The whole point of arbitration is so people don't go crying to the mmoderators every time they have a problem. I try to stay out of it whenever possible. --Zaruthustra-Mod 06:04, 22 April 2006 (BST)

Another responce on the same subject: here

Yup. --Zaruthustra-Mod 06:04, 22 April 2006 (BST)

When Zar is shown that his name is on the Arbitrator list, he gets a tad nasty

Yea, the preceding message you sent to me was "I wonder why that zaruthustra guy put your name up for arbitration?". So yes, I got a tad nasty to myself. --Zaruthustra-Mod 06:04, 22 April 2006 (BST)

Zar's half of the dialogue concerning Zar's threat to ban me. It's odd how at one point he seems to acknowledge that I'm not looking for trouble, and then he votes to ban me from the site more recently. Also note that abusive behavior is "to be expected", so too bad I guess.

Not sure what this proves. --Zaruthustra-Mod 06:04, 22 April 2006 (BST)

This is what it looks like when a Moderator supports banning a user who isn't a vandal, haxxor, or anything aside from 'outspoken'. Shows his bias - He'd like me banned so much that he is willing to publicly go on the record with it. Can you get more biased than that?

I really would. I haven't however let it interfere with my official positions. And if you don't want me to moderate your cases thats always an option too. --Zaruthustra-Mod 06:04, 22 April 2006 (BST)

Zar deletes my posts because of an edit conflict between me and another user. Instead of replacing the original user's comments that were lost in the shuffle, Zar deletes mine, a vandal action going outside the rules of deletion. When confronted (and only when confronted?) Zar says it was a mistake. He realized he crossed the line out of bullying into something more material, and tried to get back out of it. If you look at the FIX Zar made, you'll see he corrected it some ten minutes later. Hardly seems like a mistake since there was no immediate reversal. (and hey, it's not a mistake because we can easily see Zar's intent in the text he gave for the original edit.) Now, he will reply: "I deleted it, yes, but I thought Amazing was in the wrong!" - Well, he went outside the rules - PLUS he wouldn't have done that to another user. If it was someone he liked, he'd assume it was an edit conflict. Since it was me, he assumed it was vandalism (though I've only been "convicted" of vandalism once by reposting a Suggestion repeatedly that had been deleted when I was a Noob in like... October '05?)

Break out the tinfoil hats folks. Yes I thought you were deleting hagnats posts and writing over your own, as you can see by the edit caption, so I rolled it back. About a minute later I sent you a message saying I was going to revert it, but I was getting conflicts. I'm sorry it took a full 10 minutes to get it done. Apparently I'm smart enough to become a mod and scheme against you, but I'm stupid enough to wipe your post, while you and about ten other people are watching, and put a big caption on it, and send you a message about it. Good faith edits aren't vandalism. --Zaruthustra-Mod 06:04, 22 April 2006 (BST)

Zaruthustra quotes from this pile of crap:

"For the good of the wiki as a whole, I think its time the masses expelled him. For this to be any sort of legitimate it'll need to be moved over to plicy discussion or vandal banning eventually."

Zar encourages misuse of the vandal page for a non-vandal, and further encourages my banning for nothing more than being outspoken and 'annoying'. This alone deserves a de-modding. I know it won't happen, but this is not someone who should be in any position of power - He supports misuse of power.

"If Amazing goes away the rest of these people will melt into the woodwork. He however has proven that he won't. He has gotten in fights with a mass of users, every moderator here, and the owner of the game. He doesn't actually do anything anymore. He just trolls."

Zar shows his bias again by ignoring the trolling behavior of others and saying I am 100% the entire problem. That might hold water were it not for the fact that these trolls are attacking me. I did not attack them. As you can see from Zar's behavior, Mods can sometimes be in error. I tell them when I believe they are. Oh, how terrible.

I guess I'm not allowed to have opinions? I think that petition could be legitimate if it gets moved to policy discussion. We have a history of allowing democratic votes to decide things that there aren't rules for, such as the iron cross brothers deletion case. If we could get a majority of users to vote for your expulsion I would support that. I think it would be a hard sell, but people are allowed to try it. Again, I don't see how voting somehow translates into an abuse of power. --Zaruthustra-Mod 06:04, 22 April 2006 (BST)

Unfortunately, this does not cover the additonaly trolling, flaming, and bullying deleted in the History wipe. I know that's pretty much dead in the water, but as I say, this is all going to his character and to the fact that he has been consistantly harassing me.

Now that he's a Moderator (without the trolls I have), it's worse because there is even LESS chance he will be held accountable to anything he does or says.

There's also my case on the Misconduct page. It was shot down mostly with the comment "Bullying isn't misconduct" (in different wording) though the page itself says: "There is, however, an exception to this rule - excessive bullying, or attempts to treat the status of moderation as a badge of authority to force a moderator's wishes on the wiki may also come under misconduct." - Once again I read the rules and it doesn't matter because folks will just contradict them if need be.

That's all for now. If I think of more I'll add it. The log wipe took away a lot of my evidence of ongoing misbehavior.

As you can see on this page, the minute someone who doesn't hate me (I think? Maybe he still does.) steps up to arbitrate, Zar tries to paint him as biased toward me. Zar has learned to play the system and the wiki itself, and his abusive and biased behavior is not befitting a moderator at all.

In this case I request either his total removal from my personal space (discussions that don't concern him, etc.) in a reasonable fashion, OR his de-modding. It's one or the other, or this is just going to continue. The only reason he gets to be abusive without being kept in check is because he has the badge of a Moderator.

I'd prefer the action be taken directing him to leave me alone. This is all I'd wish for ALL these trolls. Leave me alone (Don't talk to me, Don't call me a Fag on your page, Don't encourage folks to get me banned for no real reason, Don't troll and harass me!) and let me go back to my own business, making useful and tremendously supported contributions on the Wiki. -- Amazing 02:24, 22 April 2006 (BST)

Well, I guess thats everything. And I do mean everything, since you apparently tried to dredge up every disagreement we've ever had. As for the deleted things, you should have brought them up when they happened, whatever they were. If you don't want me to post on your user page, which I rarely do anyhow, you didn't need an arbitration page to do that. You can just tell me. However you can't tell people not to comment on anything that "doesn't concern them". Its a wiki and even if it wasn't it isn't exactly your place to decide what everybody's business is anyways. I see a lot of vitriol and no compelling evidence, unless your charge is that I don't like you. Guilty. --Zaruthustra-Mod 06:04, 22 April 2006 (BST)

Dredging up links is called gathering evidence. If I didn't do that, I'd be expecting people to take my word for it. "Personal space" is not my Talk page, it's my general area in which I would expect you to refrain from talking TO me, or to act civilly toward me and not in a bullying manner - which I shouldn't have had to ask you to do.

Also, Zar, please follow Wiki ettiqute (rules?) and don't put your own text within my post.

I also contend that Zar saying he would Ban me if the majority supported it is nothing short of more abuse of position. There are guidelines in place, and he's threatened to violate them and ban me TWICE now, as he admits. The tone of his responces just above also speaks volumes as per his wanton disregard for civility when dealing with me. -- Amazing 06:17, 22 April 2006 (BST)

Your post was so long that the only way to reasonably address it was line by line. And if the community wanted you gone, I'd do it. Not that I'd have to since another mod would probably do it instead. Its not against the rules, its how we do things here. If it passed a policy vote we've always said its fair game. --Zaruthustra-Mod 07:28, 22 April 2006 (BST)

Okay, I guess I'm officially pressing for your de-modding given your repeated threatening behavior as witnissed right here. You don't ban someone for having a fraction of the users here dislike him. You really have no clue as to how to behave, and it's kind of pitiful because you keep saying right out in the open: "I'd abuse my position to specifically get at you if enough people asked me to." Wonder when this case'll be decided. Other Moderators, feel free to back up Zar's "If people ask for someone to be banned for being attacked by trolls without any respite, I'll do it!" position. I'd be interested to see if it's the common method of thought that a petition to get someone banned, created by an admitted troll and signed by obvious trolls along with some others is enough to warrent a Moderator banning a users from the site. -- Amazing 18:13, 22 April 2006 (BST)

Not to intrude in Amazing fantasy land, but where exactly did he threaten you? He simply said he would follow the policy were the policy made that you had to be banned. Shit, i would be forced to obey those rules too. --Grim s-^Mod 18:51, 22 April 2006 (BST)

Act like you have some sort of self-control. That said, you only need to take a look at the petitions to get me removed as a Mod and as an Arbitrator. Neither were honored though they were supported. This alone proves you and Zar wrong. People supporting a petition do not write policy without the support of the Mod team. In this case, at least two moderators are biased, so they are willing to forget the past examples that petitions like that do not write/change existing policy. -- Amazing 19:04, 22 April 2006 (BST)

You're on thin ice McCloud Amazing-Banana Bear4 21:19, 22 April 2006 (BST)

Yet another useless responce from Banana Bear. What's new? -- Amazing 01:13, 23 April 2006 (BST)

I am waiting on the resolution of this case before moving to the next, so as to give the most attention to each instance. - Note for the antsy trolls. -- Amazing 19:42, 23 April 2006 (BST)

You might be waiting for a while. Brent usually pops on once a weekish. I have nothing else to add if you don't, so if I were you I'd just start the other cases or you might be here forever.--Zaruthustra-Mod 03:38, 24 April 2006 (BST)

Is this a misconduct or an arbitration case? As far as I can tell, Amazing, most of your complaints seem to be oriented towards mod abuse and threats rather than any sort of personal debate, and you said that your main goal was demodding Zaru. Wasn't that debate already resolved in a previous Misconduct ruling? --LibrarianBrent 07:32, 25 April 2006 (BST)

Here is the quicky link to said misconduct case. Velkrin 20:13, 25 April 2006 (BST)

Brent, I made the Misconduct case, and was told it should be in Arbitration. I bring it to Arbitration, and the Misconduct case is referenced as if it dismisses the current charges. A lot of harassment occured here as well including Zar posting WHERE I LIVE and HOW TO FIND MY HOME ADDRESS. Please take a moment and look at the fact that if I made a Misconduct case, I'm told to come here, and when I come here, I'm told it's for the Misconduct page. Zar has very clearly violated many guidelines of personal conduct as well as treatment of a user. He's told people where and how to find my home, for Christ's sake. -- Amazing 04:17, 26 April 2006 (BST)

Zaruthustra, do you have any further comments before I make a final ruling? --LibrarianBrent 04:25, 26 April 2006 (BST)

Um, not really. Cept that last thing. I mean, come on. I posted that somebody under a pseudonym lives in North Carolina. And your address is a matter of public record. You made it public record. I don't even know what you're talking about that I showed people "how to find it". --Zaruthustra-Mod 04:37, 26 April 2006 (BST)

As posting photos of me on the Wiki that were found on other sites is against the 'rules', so too is looking up my address, posting some of it, and telling people how to get it. You do know what I'm talking about, but you know you've crossed the line (though you've crossed that many times, I suppose this could be one of the few times you probably "know" it.) and you're trying to play dumb. You told the specific way you found it - because of my host. So that tells people exactly what to do. For anyone not bright enough to catch on, I won't elaborate further. Again, Zar, you've crossed the line and gone way too far in your obscene willfully poor behavior. You do not take personal info UNRELATED TO THE WIKI (I didn't even do anything to warrent you looking up my personal info, I might note - You looked it up only to post it. Any other use you'd have for the info can only be worse.) and post it here when it's sensitive info or for the purpose of harm. On a person-to-person level, Zar, aside from ALL other things you've done that were fishy to outright wrong, as one human being to another, beyond all confines of this wiki - You're not a very good human being, directly because what you've done outside the boundaries of moral and ethical behavior. I may never be able to make the fact that you're constantly trolling me "stick" but this is obvious to everyone. Even the ones who won't admit it. You've gone too far in sarcastically threatening me, sarcastically hoping for my death, and, in a very real and possibly DANGEROUS way, posted information with the clear purposeful intent to put me in harm's way or make me THINK I or my family may some day be in harm's way. -- Amazing _{• SGP¦McZ¦CDF¦UDPD •} 07:02, 26 April 2006 (BST)

AWWW. Are you scared of the big bad wiki? Don't worry Amazing, if you are scared of being harmed, just let me know and I'll protect you. I'll surround you in a warm embrace with my strong muscular arms and rock you to sleep with my lullabye. If you're still scared, I'll stroke your beard and run my hand through your course greasy hair, picking out any insects I may find. You never need fear any danger as long as I am your protector, my sweet.Scinfaxi 07:26, 26 April 2006 (BST)

Wow- uh, Scinfaxi; you have NO REASON TO BE HERE, and even so, that wasn't funny, which is even more of a violation in my eyes. No cookie. --Karlsbad 07:50, 26 April 2006 (BST)

You didn't have a problem when I couldn't write poetry Karl! Anyways, no I don't have a reason to be here I guess. Of course neither have Amazing's supporters. I'm just pointing how absurd this is. Also, maybe Amazing might use this as credible evidence in my arbitration? Scinfaxi 03:42, 27 April 2006 (BST)

By the way, this is all completely absurd. All your evidence has so far been irrelevant, previously ruled upon, or non existant. You provoke everyone with inflammatory baseless accusations and then use their understandably bemused reactions as evidence against them. Why don't you just give this up and HOP ON DA BUS?Scinfaxi 07:29, 26 April 2006 (BST)

Amazing's accusations and moralizing grow more fanciful with every response, and frankly I don't feel like listening to it anymore. If Brent thinks its fair to demod or ban me, I'll abide by it. But I'm done here one way or another. --Zaruthustra-Mod 17:14, 26 April 2006 (BST)

I find it highly amusing that Amazing is kicking up such a gigantic stink about something he himself did to another: Here. Shit, your stance on this issue was the exact opposite before. By all that is holy (And everything that isnt too, im an equal opportunist), the hypocrisy coming from you of late is so thick you could cut it with a knife. I dont see how running a whois and using part of the result in a demonstration mock template can be seen as threatening. I mean, the population of North Carolina according to the figures i found with a quick google search is 8,049,313, which is, IIRC, about 2/5ths of the population of Australia (For comparison), meaning the threat to your person was essentially nil. It was completely harmless. Im in Sydney, by the way (3 879 400 people. Im in twice as much danger as you now!!! zOMG!!!). Grow the fuck up you sad, twisted little troll, and stop trying to drag down good people with your hateful lies and double standards. --Grim s-^Mod 21:53, 26 April 2006 (BST)

Thank you Grim, for pointing that out. This is all out of hand. Also, Grim, I'm in my car, on my way to Sydney, from Seattle, so it might be a while, . Watch out! -¯\(o_º)/¯Bear 22:05, 26 April 2006 (BST)

Well hopefully you make good time before you drive out into Elliot Bay. [P.S. Go Mariners!] --Karlsbad 22:26, 26 April 2006 (BST)

Poor illiterate Grim s. Unable to see where I said my address was not related to the Wiki in any way. In my report I had to show proof of who was trying to disable my account. Do you need some hooked on phonix books, Grimmy? And yeah - Stay out of this, petulant child. Also note Grim built on Zar's obscenely bad conduct by pointing out exactly how to find my address even moreso than Zar did. That's also not his HOME ADDRESS you ninny. Man, you couldn't BE more of a useless voice of hatred here, Grim. Go away. -- Amazing 04:39, 27 April 2006 (BST)

Final Ruling

From a careful inspection of the facts of this case, it can be shown that Zaruthustra has indeed shown a negative bias towards Amazing, and Amazing a similar bias towards Zaruthustra- however, it does NOT appear that Zaruthustra's moderation actions have been influenced by this bias. Therefore, I would like Zaruthustra to avoid further contact with Amazing and apologize for the statement about Amazing's location. I would also like Amazing to similarly avoid any further contact with Zaruthustra. If Amazing is seeking moderation help on a problem, he should seek it from a user OTHER than Zaruthustra, as it's been clearly proven that these two do NOT get along well. Case closed. --LibrarianBrent 05:00, 27 April 2006 (BST)

Done and done. -- Amazing _{• SGP¦McZ¦CDF¦UDPD •} 05:15, 27 April 2006 (BST)

Sure, as long as amazing will do the same for rasher. Whats ok for me must be ok for him. --Zaruthustra-Mod 05:18, 27 April 2006 (BST)

I have always said that I was seeking to be left alone by all these folks. If you can get them to agree not to speak TO or OF me in a negative tone, I would agree to the same for them. Other than that, please don't tack stipulations onto your agreement to this ruling if you do indeed agree. It's in poor taste. I guess if you want to reply to this, (or at least say you do agree to the ruling without your own new stipulations) and don't ask me to reply, this ruling will officially be in effect. -- Amazing _{• SGP¦McZ¦CDF¦UDPD •} 05:20, 27 April 2006 (BST)

You're aware that you two don't have to agree to this, right? "As a note, by requesting an Arbitration, all parties are thus obliged to accept the outcome of the Arbitration. Not doing will be considered Vandalism, and such vandalism attempts will be treated as if the vandal has already received two warnings."

This decision is now in effect. --LibrarianBrent 03:20, 28 April 2006 (BST)

Fantastic. I assume the 'apology' part isn't going to be considered that big a deal when/if it doesn't arrive, correct? -- Amazing 06:35, 28 April 2006 (BST)

I think it's safe to say Zar is not planning on abiding by this ruling. -- Amazing 18:51, 1 May 2006 (BST)

Evidence plz? --LibrarianBrent 13:39, 4 May 2006 (BST)

No Apology. He's been better about not commenting when I'm involved in a discussion unrelated to him or mod action. I'm not going to be an apology-nazi, but it was stated in your ruling and he is showing some obvious disrespect here by not abiding by it. I dunno. -- Amazing 06:11, 7 May 2006 (BST)

*cough* -- Amazing 07:34, 29 April 2006 (BST)

Say things instead of making a noise. It just works better. -Banana¯\(o_º)/¯Bear 07:15, 30 April 2006 (BST)

(that only works when someone keeps doing it.) And close your tags, man. -- Amazing 07:26, 30 April 2006 (BST)

Not to be picky, but wouldn't giving an apology violate the "avoid further contact" portion of the ruling? Seems like a catch 22. - Velkrin 22:45, 8 May 2006 (BST)

legalisticly speaking correct, but there still common sense.--Vista ^W! 22:58, 8 May 2006 (BST)

Zaruthustra has been banned as per the guidelines for Arbitration due to his statements saying that he would not apologize for this statement. He will be able to edit again in 24 hours. This case is now closed. --LibrarianBrent 01:55, 13 May 2006 (BST)

Pardon me for being blunt on this matter, but i think that part of the ruling was fucking stupid, and banning Zar for not complying with it was equally stupid. As already pointed out, he was damned either way under your ruling. Furthermore: Apologies should not ever be part of a ruling, reason being that they are always forced under such circumstances, and nearly never sincere. As such, they mean precisely dick (And often stir up further resentment). --Grim s-^Mod 02:06, 13 May 2006 (BST)

Wait, we can comment on this? I tend to agree with Grim. Last night, during a conversation with Zar, he mentioned that the main reason he wouldn't appologize is because it wouldn't be sincere, and he doesn't give "fake appologies". I'm basically backing up Grim here. --Sirens^{T RR} 02:14, 13 May 2006 (BST)

I just thought i would add that an apology made under duress is worth nothing at all of meaning, and its only possible value lies in its value as a point in a pissing contest between people. By demanding an apology as part of your ruling, you are directly supporting, and indeed, feeding, the underlying conflict between the two users. --Grim s-^Mod 02:21, 13 May 2006 (BST)

To comment specifically on the notations of those above: In any case, I believe a ban is required for anyone who violates the standards of the Wiki, is told to make reparations, and not only flagrantly disobeys, but claims no wrongdoing was done. The judgement was made, the penalties known, so to me this was a voluntary ban in order to keep from admitting wrongdoing. (Let's not pretend any given user refusing to apologize - for something they are unequivically told was wrong - is about anything but pride.) In many cases, an apology from whatever party is considered "wrong" can smooth things over just enough to diffuse a situation. In a case where such rulings are refused, the situation is purposefully furthered through passive resistance. For example, if I refused a similar ruling, I would be labelled as 'inciting more trouble' by all users viewing the proceedings. -- Amazing 02:46, 13 May 2006 (BST)

Not from me you wouldnt. I would not fight as hard on your behalf though, because (and im being blunt here) i think you are a dickhead, but i am completely consistent in my beliefs and opinions. Apologies when forced are utterly meaningless, and why should someone do something that is not only meaningless, but also, in their view, completely unjustified? --Grim s-^Mod 03:07, 13 May 2006 (BST)

Ideally, one's personal view of what's justified wouldn't overrule an arbitration ruling. And of course, it doesn't. That's why the ban's justified in my opinion. If an arb told me I had to apologize to someone, sure I'd bitch about it - but I'd do it. Why? Because I realize I'm not always right, and someone telling me I was wrong enough that I should be forced to apologize, I don't think I'd have the idea I was 'above the law'. I'm sure no one who is banned thinks it's justified, but that doesn't mean we should treat them as if that's as valid a concern as actual injustice. An apology shows that said party realizes they were wrong, or MAY have been wrong (you can apologize with a lot of "I'm sorry if I.." or "I'm genuinely sorry if you thought.." in it.) so really, to me, saying this apology would be 'hollow' or what have you just shows that any given party told to do as such believes they did absolutely nothing wrong - and furthermore, aboslutely nothing that could be percieved as wrong. Otherwise the "If I" apology is a very easy one to make. Me, I think it's more about 'winning'. -- Amazing 03:12, 13 May 2006 (BST)

	MISCONBITRATION
	GOMG MOD CABOOSE!!!!

OHNOES!--Mpaturet 04:23, 13 May 2006 (BST)

To be honest, I did not want to ban Zaruthustra, and I entirely agree that the current Arbitration system is entirely flawed and based on false premises. However, the rules were passed as written, unfortunately, and as a moderator and arbitrator I cannot do anything other than follow them without abusing moderation privileges. I personally have repeatedly suggested changes to this system on the Policy Discussion page, but they have been voted down. Since Zaruthustra was fully aware of the consequences and explicitly refused to apologize, I had no choice but to hold him noncompliant with the ruling and administer vandalism consequences as if he had already been warned twice. I think this system of Arbitration needs to be reworked entirely, to be honest, and I am open to any suggestions on how to do so. --LibrarianBrent 18:16, 13 May 2006 (BST)