UDWiki talk:Administration/Arbitration/NWO vs Cobra, Aichon and RadicalWhig

From The Urban Dead Wiki
Jump to navigationJump to search

Headers (no, not those Headers, the other ones)

That page has just started, and already it has become a mess to navigate and edit. Would anyone mind if the various statements were turned into proper headers? (e.g., ===Happy 24 7's First Statement:===) -- Spiderzed 16:03, 13 September 2013 (BST)

DT needs to give it the okay, but I'm definitely in support. I nearly did it myself yesterday. Aichon 16:18, 13 September 2013 (BST)

what a great way to cap off the summer!

HEY! HANDS OFF MAH KITTY! Because Harrison
That's why.

--User:Sexualharrison14:57, 15 September 2013

The Ruling

I don't mind restraints (it was what I was expecting), but they really need to receive a time limit. An arbitration ruling that effectively restrains the involved parties until the end of time isn't really valid. It are typically 1-3 months that such restraining rulings are held up, but YMMV. -- Spiderzed 23:54, 15 September 2013 (BST)

I wanted something more interesting. Half way I stopped caring because of how the case was going. DT just ended up saying, I can't do shit about this. It's too bad we can't come to some kind of conclusion, Spider. Radical is still an attention whore. Still disappoint. At the same time, I'm sure Cobra(given its past drama - in the past lawl) or any other PKer group wouldn't want a page like BONWO and now it's clear that such pages can be made, thanks to Radical. NEVAR FORGET!!! -.- 00:05, 16 September 2013 (BST)
The reason 'such pages' can be made is because they're not making up ridiculous shit about you to make you look bad. Everything on that page, aside from some commentary, was said by you. Had it all been outright slander, the precedent is that it should be moved to userspace. You brought this to arbitration, apparently without researching a damn thing, judging by your arguments, and this is the appropriate ruling. Had you done your research and developed a convincing argument beyond "this hurts my feelings", you would have stood a very good chance of swaying my decision. --DTPraise KnowledgePK 02:25, 16 September 2013 (BST)

The weird and wonderful moment when somebody stumbles upon the right decision by entirely ridiculous logic.--Yonnua Koponen Talk ! Contribs 02:14, 16 September 2013 (BST)

Go back to being Shortround. --DTPraise KnowledgePK 02:26, 16 September 2013 (BST)
amen--User:Sexualharrison10:55, 16 September 2013

The Krinks page has been unprotected (forgot about it until now; sorry about that), so the ruling can now be carried out. Aichon 19:01, 18 September 2013 (BST)

I had more confidence in you DT. If you think that page isn't outright slander than you're obviously more oblivious than I had expected. Lets take into consideration the original purpose as to why that page was made before concluding that it should be a parody, regardless of quotations. Can users copy signed responses and identify the information as accurate? Yeah. Can users copy signed responses and then add "commentary" to insult users? Yes. Does that make the insult accurate? No. That would be like me choosing any number of your signed posts and then pasting them in quotations on a page to add biased, insulting "commentary" then justifying its truth with even more biased, insulting "commentary". I mean seriously. All I hear radical harp about is "research" what research? Flawed policies, past flawed arbitrations? The only research anyone should be doing is the kind that involves reading an actual book, preferably on debate, philosophy(for all the pre law majors out there) and probably ethics. When I said third party, I ment from the perspective of anyone who hasn't been on the wiki yet; not the perspective of your biased wiki buddies. I had more trust in you than that DT. No skin off my back for learning that you would use your minuscule involvement with a past group of mine in order to impress your buddy buds. The beauracracy here is seriously boring. Anyway, lets look at the end result here, radical got out scatt free. Krinks is left with no improvement because you can't even fathom a consideration for a 3rd party perspective to be made on the page. I presented a variation for a third party perspective. I gave the information I had at hand to EVERYONE. Which would respectively provide some kind of cooperation. Regardless of the date of the trap, it was considered a trap on that date. So please enlighten me on any retorts to that. I just caught kristy cotton in krinks and gave her a pistol to the face. Does that mean I should edit the krinks page, posting a screenshot, parading that she was caught in the trap that was revealed to the public, without contacting her first to make a collaborative edit? The edit couldn't be made without the "communities" approval, kristy's approval and probably the untampered screenshot. If those are all green, then it would probably be made official. Spider just made the edit armed with screenshots. Did anyone contest paynes edit on krinks? What happened? Oh, co bra has gotta come in and defaced NWO on the krinks page, then justify the bias as fact because,"they won." Ok well, they can't technically win in UD. They can't even post screenshots of PKs on the page without any probable cause. Their probable cause was that "hey, they say they're relating to and dusting krinks! Time to kill deem and then publicize their dusting and relation as a failure." Ok, what cobra? Sexual wasn't exactly being civil to me, so how were you going to bring the krinks edits up? We can speculate, but sexual insisted on an edit war to protect his "accomplishments". Sorry I don't do my research on the drama of the wiki, but shouldn't cobra be mature enough to know what they did was wrong? And by cobra I mean sexual and spider the "senior" users, compared to anyone in NWO. Is provoking new users really more important than making the wiki fun? How is it that radical can make a page like he did and not harm my group and in turn, the wiki. How can more experienced wiki users in positions like sysops and bureaucrats not be held accountable by their peers for acting just as childish and insignificant? Instead, everyone jumps in like it doesn't matter. It's seriously retarded. When that's fixed, you can talk to me about logic of the urban dead wiki. H4ppy 24 7 14:13, 27 September 2013 (BST)
tl;dr. If you have lasting concerns, take them to Misconbitration.--Yonnua Koponen Talk ! Contribs 16:15, 27 September 2013 (BST)

Radical's Final Response

First, I'd like to sincerely apologize to NWO from the bottom of my heart for me being AWESOME.

But for dead serious, I'm done now. From now on, I'm done with bothering you on the wiki, CyberOpp, as long as you simply leave me and my beef with your homeboy Pantstain alone. No more cheap shots at me, even in passing, and I'm nobody to you. Or else I get my belt out again and the last three weeks repeats itself. But neither of us wants that do we?

Aaaaand you're probably not gonna accept. Ah well, I *was* looking forward to removing all my commentary and a few other bits from your and Ayu's BNWO quotes section *and* also never touching those sections again. No? Yes? Your call.

--RWSig1.png RWSig2.pngFoD PK Praise Rando!03:05, 16 September 2013 (BST)


Okay, but.. anything you do with BNWO doesn't have anything to do with any NWO members. You delete the page, it's because you choose to do so. You abandon the page, it's because of your own choice. You edited the page, it's also because you choose to do so. Just like how you claim I cannot change your opinion on Payne. So, it's your call. Not mine, not ours, no one else's. --Ayu Milady NWO member ┬─┬ノ( º _ ºノ) 16:37, 16 September 2013 (BST)
It's called a "peace offering", lady. And I believe this offer was directed at CyberOpp, not you. Unless you're representing him in his stead. --RWSig1.png RWSig2.pngFoD PK Praise Rando! 21:27, 16 September 2013 (BST)