UDWiki:Administration/Arbitration/Amazing vs Lucero Capell

Re-Opened

Lucero flagrantly disregarded our agreement to leave eachother alone by reverting my changes to a PERSONAL ATTACK where I made the template image an actual whale, since that's what the text was about, and Uploading an image of me that I had removed from the wiki himself.

I SEEK NO LESS THAN A BAN FOR LUCERO FOR VIOLATING HIS ARBITRATION AGREEMENT. -- Amazing 01:34, 25 April 2006 (BST)

First of all, which arbitration agreement ? You two made a deal whitout anyone of the arbitration staff involved. If any sides failed to comply with this deal of yours, the arbitration staff have nothing to do about it. Second. My sources told me you have uploaded that same image into the wiki a few days (hours) ago. It was also told me that you removed that image from the wiki, and now is hosting that image on a third party site. Great. Now... let us make this clear.

• Amazing, you are getting a first warning as vandal, for uploading that image in a third party site with an offensive link name. http://www.hyperwolf.com/lucero_capell_is_a_whore/savemeohnoes.gif. C'mon man, you can do better than that. This was clearly an attack against Lucero.
• Lucero, you have uploaded a picture from an user that he himself has removed after posting it here. This clearly shows that he doesnt want that image hosted here and, therefore, not used and/or abused by others users. For posting private data from another user into the wiki whitout his persmission, i wish to give you a first time ban of 24h.

Does both sides accept this ruling ? --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{[cloned] [mod]} 01:59, 25 April 2006 (BST)

I would also like to point that this same image is now forbidden in this wiki. Hosted here or outside, no one is now supposed to make use of it. --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{[cloned] [mod]} 02:01, 25 April 2006 (BST)

All righty. Well, I think I should point out that a) I removed the image of my own accord prior to this ruling, and b) that I have not received a warning prior to this case, and as such should have two more warnings before I am banned. However, for the good of the wiki, and if only to make Amazing shut up for a while, I accept the ruling. At the risk of sounding fallacious, I would like to note that I admit that I shouldn't have uploaded the image and would like to apologize to Amazing personally for it.

Amazing, whatever faults you may (do?) have, I shouldn't have uploaded the image after you removed it from the wiki. I apologize.

And with that, I accept the ruling and the ban therewith. --Lucero Capell 02:12, 25 April 2006 (BST)

My own website is my own business and not yours, hagnat. Nor is it any business of the wiki. Ruling not accepted, because you cannot do anything to someone for anything done off the wiki. This has been stated to me in the past. You also cannot tell me what images I may or may not link to that are hosted on my own websites offsite. You have already been previously dismissed as an arbitrator, as well. Sorry, but you really have no right to say one word about anything on my own website. Next it'll be "Take that comment off your Blog or be banned from the Wiki" or "You're banned for sending that e-mail." I would have had no problem with this if you hadn't been dismissed already AND you were telling me what I can and can't name a directory on my website. Sorry, but you have absolutely no right to do that. I was really looking forward to a fair ruling I could accept and would let me move on. This isn't it. No right to tell me what I can and can't do on my own website. At all. -- Amazing 03:56, 26 April 2006 (BST)

Amazing. I have nothing against you or your website. What i have against you now is that you named a directory in a very offensive way against Lucero, hosted an image there, and used that link HERE. If you kept that for your own pesonal use on YOUR personal website, it would be ok and there wouldnt be a thing we could do against you here in the wiki. If you link things HERE, yes, it is our business (and by 'our' i mean the moderators of this wiki). This behaviour of yours would surely lead to trolling by lucero's side, which is why i am giving you a second warning (thanks mudez for pointing that out) and to ease Lucero's punishment to only a two-times warning. Any more missbehaviour on both of you will lead to a 24h ban. --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{[cloned] [mod]} 19:36, 26 April 2006 (BST)

You might not like this ruling, you might not want me to arbitrate this case, but i believe any other arbitrator will recognize that this is a very fair ruling, and approve it. Accept it amazing, and let this case rest. --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{[cloned] [mod]} 19:36, 26 April 2006 (BST)

As a long-dismissed arbitrator, you really don't need to tell me to accept your illigitimate ruling. -- Amazing 18:41, 27 April 2006 (BST)

Comment - Hagnat stated that amazing is getting his first warning but according to vandal data he already has one, so this should be his second.--Bermudez 16:05, 25 April 2006 (BST)

It looks like a fair desicion. I would just like to say that we are not stopping you from hosting the image and and naming it anything you want. The warning is for linking to an image with an offensive link name on the wiki. Having said that, I believe that the image should not be banned from the wiki, as long as it is linked using an unoffensive link name.--The General ^{W! Mod} 19:55, 26 April 2006 (BST)

Ruling

Implication FTW! --Lucero Capell 22:17, 19 April 2006 (BST)

Lucero Capell's involvement has been very clear in all my proceedings and all my large discussions wherein he swoops in, dressed as TrollMan, defender of Trolls everywhere using his special Troll Belt and Trollarang. -- Amazing 03:09, 20 April 2006 (BST)

Proof of Amazing's willful disregard for this system and the Wiki. --Lucero Capell 03:12, 20 April 2006 (BST)

Conns 2 cents

I was asked by the Arbiter to evaluate the ruling and to determine if this was a fair ruling or not. Here we go as I understand it... Lucero Capell received a 24 hour ban for uploading a picture in question that was removed by amazing. Amazing has received a similar ban for and allow me to stress this... for posting a Link that was found to be offensive. Regardless of where it is hosted, the presance of the link itself on this wiki is as if the image/site was on the wiki itself. By my understanding both punishments were fair, and to be honest in my opinion a bit lax. Should either party wish to further complain about the measure as deemed by the agreed on arbiter, it should be considered as additional vandalism by either or both parties (as to be determined by teh arbiter)and the appropriate actions taken. If memory of the fine print on the arbitration page serves me correctly:is an imediate 3rd warning and/or Ban. My suggestion gentlemen, take your respective Bans (if you have not done so already) and discontinue any further contact with each other wether that is directly or indirectly. You will bothe be happier for it. Conndraka 21:06, 26 April 2006 (BST)

Conn, no one's been banned or warned yet, Amazing turned down the ruling by hag. --Lucero Capell 21:19, 26 April 2006 (BST)

Arbitration rulings cannot be turned down, unless one party rejects the arbitrator.--The General ^{W! Mod} 22:12, 26 April 2006 (BST)

Hagnat has long been dismissed. I did not recieve a ban or warning for posting another link. Ever. Look up your facts before you say such things. I've only been banned once when I was a noob for reposting a suggestion I thought was inapproproately removed. I have never been warned for any linking whatsoever, nor have I been warned for it. You're coming out of the gate here with a false allegation. -- Amazing 04:04, 27 April 2006 (BST)

I realize that you have not posted anotther link. However, if further BS related to the arbitration is posted after the beggining of Arbitartion it imediatly goes to 3rd warning. Regardless, both parties have accepted the arbiter, and the arbiter's decision is final. Live with it and go on. Conndraka 18:25, 27 April 2006 (BST)

I DID NOT ACCEPT THIS ARBITRATOR, I SPECIFICALLY DISMISSED HIM PREVIOUS TO THE RULING. And you said I was banned for posting a link, now you say I wasn't. Seriously man, what's going on there? -- Amazing 18:35, 27 April 2006 (BST)

Vista's opinion

I was also contacted by the arbitrator to review his decision. My conclusion is this:

Because this was a mutually agreed upon contract without interference of an arbitrator, it does not have the status of an arbitration ruling, Yet because it was a mutually agreed contract aimed to deflate the hostile situation between both parties that existed at the time, any breaking of said contract must be taken into account and any failure should be recognized in the weight of the ruling. I believe that Hagnats ruling does this.

Uploading an image illegally would normally only result in a warning for a bad faith edit. A 24-hour ban would, seeing the history behind the case, be a reasonable result of a ruling.

While only users’ behaviour on the wiki can be taken into account, we have warned and banned people for offensive links. While we won't tell people how to behave on their system, when it gets linked to the wiki, the text that comes with it onto the wiki does become part of behaviour of the user. It seems to me that this was indeed an infraction of the contract, although a more minor one compared to the other infraction already handled. Therefore a warning would, seeing the history behind the case, be a reasonable result of a ruling.--Vista ^W! 23:18, 26 April 2006 (BST)

Final ruling

Three other arbitrators have deemed my ruling as fair... conn's ruling is even thougher than mine. Now, gentleman... have we come to an agreement ? Which ruling does you both approve ?

1. 24h ban Both.
2. Second Warning Both.

--People's Commissar Hagnat ^{[cloned] [mod]} 01:07, 27 April 2006 (BST)

This Ruling is invalid as hagnat has been dismissed, and cannot rule on it no matter how much he wants to push through the ban he voted for on Mia's petition. You will not warn nor ban me for naming a directory on my own website. -- Amazing 04:03, 27 April 2006 (BST)

As I am approved by both sides, I'll take the case over from Hagnat, have there been either any changes or new information since hagnats ruling that I need to be aware off, or can I give my ruling?--Vista ^W! 18:28, 27 April 2006 (BST)

I'm willing to change the name of the directory on my site, but it is not offensive to a degree that warrents a warning. I don't see any of you warning the folks who have called me a cunt or what have you ON THE WIKI ITSELF so that SMACKS of bias. Where are all the warnings for real-text insults as opposed to a link with "is a whore" in the name? It's a very clear double-standard. I fail to understand how someone can call me a whale in the text on this wiki itself, and then I am threatened with warning/banning for naming a directory off-site with the word "whore" in it. Doesn't make a lick of sense. -- Amazing 18:37, 27 April 2006 (BST)

Other than more Amazing ranting, not really. If Amazing wishes to make clear that he is willing to change the directory name, I should also make clear that I willingly and of my own accord uploaded over the amazing image. Just out of curiousity though, is the nature of this ruling due to the previous agreement Amazing and I reached (and he consequently broke), or just Arbitration's nature? If you're interested in more Amazing name calling, check my talk page. --Lucero Capell 18:51, 27 April 2006 (BST)

Directory naming and following aggrivation a direct result of Lucero repeatedly reverting my photo onto a "save the whales" template, then uploading the image again after I removed it. Sorry you had to deal with some kind of anger after your "willing" antagonization. But yeah, I'm renaming the directory - that was a heat-of-the-moment thing out of frustration due to Lucero's actions. And it still won't be used against me for a warning or ban. -- Amazing 19:01, 27 April 2006 (BST)

I do believe that you're not in a position to say whether you'll be warned or banned. --Lucero Capell 19:04, 27 April 2006 (BST)

Seeing as how I'd have to add "naming a directory on your page in an offensive manner, then linking on the wiki" to the guidelines for vandal banning - supported by my warning/ban - Yes I am. -- Amazing 19:10, 27 April 2006 (BST)

Hello and welcome to arbitration. I don't see "vandal banning" at the top of this page, do you? --Lucero Capell 19:12, 27 April 2006 (BST)

And yet that's what's being proposed through this page. -- Amazing 19:17, 27 April 2006 (BST)

Ok, no warning or banning unless you violate whatever desision Vista makes.--The General ^{W! Mod} 19:46, 27 April 2006 (BST)

Questions: This applies to Amazing, or both? --Lucero Capell 19:48, 27 April 2006 (BST)

Both, unless Vista disagrees.--The General ^{W! Mod} 20:54, 27 April 2006 (BST)

Sounds fair. I didn't really expect Lucero to be banned. (though I still think his repeated harassment warrnets it, I don't expect others to enforce the fact that people shouldn't be allowed to do that, seeing how most support it.) I'm not even sure if anyone's been banned because of an arbitration ruling before. Things get pretty heated when you're in the actual process of reverting something someone else is doing with your photo, but I don't even know if anyone's been banned due to arbitration now that I sit and actually think about it. -- Amazing 00:00, 28 April 2006 (BST)

the ruling

You both tried to solve this by making a deal between yourselves. You both violated that deal both in spirit as in action. Hagnats ruling was fair; it laid its punishment relative to the infractions made. I do believe however that there is another way to come to a fair ruling.

You both tried to solve the problems you had with each other on your own, something arbitrators should applaud. We can try to shift the focus how we'll deal with this more on that then the fact that you both didn't adhere to it as much as you should have. So we can make a choice, either you both be punished for failing the contract you two made yourself as Hagnat ruled. Or we try your contract again, and this time we try to make a better agreement.

I'll take as basis what you both agreed on and expand on that,

1. You both will remain civil towards each other in every other place on the wiki, including other users’ talk-pages, group pages etc. With civil I mean no insults, accusations, or needlessly harsh wordings of facts, this included in an implied manner. Instead of saying, You're a big fat liar you both will write more in style of I don't think that is consistent with what you said before etc.
2. You both stay out each others talk page, content concerning either user on those talk pages are for the discretion of that user.
3. You both will limit your responses towards each other to two in each conversation under a topic heading, like point by 1, counter point by 2, rebuttal of counter point by 1, rebuttal of rebuttal by 2 or point by 1, point by 2, different user 1, 2, 3, 4, point by 2, point by 1, or variations there of.
4. You both will respect each others edits and content, you will not edit content that the other is the sole creator of, and will use discretion when the other user is identified as a mayor contributor. The same applies when there is a clear but small part that is easily attributed to one of the users.

Because there this is such a large and intrusive contract that still has grey spots, I fully expect it to be broken, therefore 3 things.

• One, It has a time limit, point 2, 3 and 4 will time out after two weeks from now at Friday, may 12^th. On the 12^th most if not all of wiki-gate will be resolved one way or the other, and hopefully tempers will be back to normal. Point 1 will last until June the 1^st. This ruling is not to impose on either of you for ever, merely to change the way you both interact, if that hasn't changed voluntarily within that month, this contract will ultimately cause more harm then good.

• Two, Infractions of the contract will not be automatically carry the normal penalty of not complying to an arbitration ruling but be weighted according how big it was. if you think the other is in violation you keep adhering to the contract, do not react yourself but simply notify me, and I'll pass it on to a mod if it is a serious enough infraction or comment on it if its not. This solution is supposed to change the way you two interact, not to cause as many warning and bannings as possible, slipping up is allowed, wilful breaking is not.

• Three, Because this solution is heavily dependent on both your willingness to conform to it, this contract will only go into effect if you both agree to it, if one or both don't agree to this, Hagnats ruling will be my own instead, this contract is meant as an alternative to that not a replacement. If you have however some points or changes yourself that you think would help both your interactions, they must count for the both of you and be temporal in nature, both must agree on them and I will add them at my discretion.

I would like to hear from both of you how you stand on this, and if you have any questions or proposals for change.--Vista ^W! 00:13, 28 April 2006 (BST)

Sounds good to me. I'll mull it over and see if any questions pop up. -- Amazing 06:32, 28 April 2006 (BST)

The same. So long as my own userpage doesn't apply, I'm fine with it. --Lucero Capell 21:21, 28 April 2006 (BST)

Arbiters

I would like to request hagnat, Zaruthustra, or Odd Starter as arbitrator. --Lucero Capell 16:01, 20 April 2006 (BST)

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

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 03:01, 22 April 2006 (BST)

No offense to LB, but I will not accept him as arbitrator. Would Conndraka be a suitable candidate (assuming he accepts)? --Lucero Capell 03:59, 22 April 2006 (BST)

Just curious what you're reason is for bypassing one for the other. Seems suspicious, is all. I've accepted the judgement of people who might rule against me, and Brent's one of them. Can the same not be said of you? -- Amazing 05:34, 22 April 2006 (BST)

Certainly. I've discussed it with Brent, and I disagree with many of his opinions on wiki policy. Nothing against him, I just would prefer not to have his as arbitrator. --Lucero Capell 05:54, 22 April 2006 (BST)

I would be willing to arbitrate if both parties accept. --Cyberbob240^{CDF | Arb | W!} 04:03, 22 April 2006 (BST)

I dunno if that'll go over too well. I'll let Lurcero answer this since it's pretty much dead from the start. heh -- Amazing 05:34, 22 April 2006 (BST)

I don't really know Lucero, or what he's done, so it would be impossible for me to be biased in this case. And even if it were, I still wouldn't be. --Cyberbob240^{CDF | Arb | W!} 05:38, 22 April 2006 (BST)

Yeah, it's not against you, it's just the fact that Lucero will probably go against anyone who hasn't been at odds with me in the past few months. -- Amazing 05:45, 22 April 2006 (BST)

I hate you, Amazing, and all that you stand for!!! There, now we're at odds :P --Cyberbob240^{CDF | Arb | W!} 05:46, 22 April 2006 (BST)

Okay, now you're probably going to be the Arbitrator. Hahah ;) -- Amazing 05:52, 22 April 2006 (BST)

Not so much what Amazing would like to think but what you have said yourself. You've just recently decided to turn a new leaf and be impartial. As much as I'd like to respect that, you're still a wildcard as far as I'm concerned. Considering the fact that you've claimed that since grim_s dislikes Amazing, he must be a good guy, I'm not entirely convinced of your impartiality yet. --Lucero Capell 05:54, 22 April 2006 (BST)

When did I say that? If it's from before my reform, it doesn't count. --Cyberbob240^{CDF | Arb | W!} 05:55, 22 April 2006 (BST)

I think he means something another user entirely said on my talk page. -- Amazing 05:58, 22 April 2006 (BST)

Yup, I'm wrong, sorry. It was something Amazing said to you. In any case, I haven't seen enough of you post-reform to trust your decision. --Lucero Capell 05:59, 22 April 2006 (BST)

That is fair enough. Thanks for considering me. --Cyberbob240^{CDF | Arb | W!} 06:01, 22 April 2006 (BST)

Thanks for being reasonable and having the guts to volunteer ;-). --Lucero Capell 06:02, 22 April 2006 (BST)

Ditto --Sirens^{T RR} 04:04, 22 April 2006 (BST)

Dream on. -- Amazing 05:34, 22 April 2006 (BST)

Capell - I am willing to drop this case as per you particularly if you agree to abstain from EVER pestering me. This does not mean I expect you to keep out of anywhere I post, but it DOES mean that I would expect from you a higher level of behavior that does not include insult, editing with the intent of aggrivation, ridicule, general harassment, and similar actions.

I'm sure you will claim never to have even thought of doing such things, but if that's the case then you'd have no problem agreeing to this: Leave me alone unless you are going to speak to/with me in a civil manner, and you can be guarenteed the same exact behavior from me. Refrain from the standard behind-the-back insults, mockery, etc. and all that stuff that is no doubt entertaining, but wholly unnecissary and counter-productive.

Does this sound acceptable? Keep in mind that if you do accept this and I drop my complaint against you -- I will issue another if you go ahead and do the same thing again.

The reason I hold you in a different standing than the rest is that you're the "odd man out" in terms of straight-out sociopathic trolling. The others have a real problem with habitually bad behavior and total wanton disregard for all standards of decensy and respect.

I never thought you were specificially in that same category. In other words, I think we can have some sort of 'eye to eye' on this that results in the BOTH of us simply leaving eachother alone, not talking ABOUT eachother or TO eachother in unnecissary, counter-productive, mocking fashions.

What do you think? If not, I guess Arbitration would continue, but please don't take this as a "Do as I say or I press the case" type of deal. In reading this I do still have a lot of ill will toward you for what I percieve as harassment and very poor behavior, but I think this can be dissolved and we can both move on. You can see all of the folks here currently hating my guts - I don't think it's necissary for you to be one of them, they can do fine on their own.

So let's enact a cease-fire in which we don't bother eachother, eh? If you want to voice a negative opinion about me, fine, but there are ways to do it WITHOUT crossing "the line" and that's all I've ever wanted from all of you guys. -- Amazing 06:11, 22 April 2006 (BST)

Amazing, whatever your faults, I applaud you for at least taking this step to try and work things out by yourself rather than relying on this page entirely.

As for the proposal itself, I'd be more than willing to make the trade-off that I will leave you alone on your talk page and not "pester" (though I'm sure our definitions will vary) you on other areas of the wiki on the condition that you do the same. I do however have a problem with the comments about you. I will be civil in my dealings with you and about you on public pages. However, my User page is mine alone, and I will put my opinions on there, regardless of whether they are in the form of satire or otherwise. I would be willing to tone down my comments on other users' talk pages but my User page will remain as it is until such a time as I deem fit.

Regardless of whether this works or not, kudos for the thoughts. --Lucero Capell 06:56, 22 April 2006 (BST)

Well, I hadn't even been to your user page until you said that. heh. Bad feng shuei you've got going there. I don't care about user pages in the least. People say what they want about me and link to my user page, then I use mine to post a rebuttal. That's no problem. What I can't deal with (as in, literally can't contribute anything because of this actual blockade) is the fact that anywhere I post, messages sprout up tearing into me, and the fact that on group pages, talk pages, etc. all over the wiki, people have decided it's okay to say the most profane, insulting, and highly unacceptable things. What's more disturbing is the fact that it's totally overlooked, but that's another story.

What was my point again? Oh yeah, I guess we have a deal. -- Amazing 07:01, 22 April 2006 (BST)

(I should point out I do make the distinction between Templates encouraging more defamation and harassment vs. User Pages.) -- Amazing 07:03, 22 April 2006 (BST)

Good. And yes, it is horrible feng shui, that's kind of the point ;-). Out of curiosity, what exactly was it of mine that bothered you so if it wasn't my User page (which was my assumption)? The only thing I can think of in recent times is the "Tee hee" comment on your user page. --Lucero Capell 07:07, 22 April 2006 (BST)

The common method of thought seems to be 'if it wasn't recent, it doesn't count' - My complaint is the ongoing bad behavior and what basically amounts to virtual stalking with folks specifically going out of their way to antagonize me wherever I go. Now I'm not saying you're the worst one (of course, given the previous olive branch) but I do include you in what I personally believe to be the horde that follows me around. You're above the level of the others tho. Under a different history of circumstances, you'd probably even be able to say outright that these people are causing more of this than I am. As it stands, I dunno if that's possible to come out with without heavy consiquences from the masses. -- Amazing 18:25, 22 April 2006 (BST)

Just thought I'd point out that you're just as guilt of stalking and harrassment. --Sirens^{T RR} 18:30, 22 April 2006 (BST)

Back it up, or shut it up. This section is resolved, go troll elsewhere. Man, you're full of false allegations without any shred of proof lately. I only speak to and of those who speak to and of me FIRST. You will never see any different. -- Amazing 01:19, 23 April 2006 (BST)

If there still is a need for an arbitrator I'll volunteer.--Vista ^W! 18:35, 25 April 2006 (BST)