UDWiki:Administration/Arbitration/Grim s vs Conndraka

From The Urban Dead Wiki
Jump to navigationJump to search
Padlock.png Administration Services — Protection.
This page has been protected against editing. See the archive of recent actions or the Protections log.

The Grimch versus Conndraka

It is quite simple, i want the following things done:

  1. The striking of his absurd ruling against me in This case
  2. An order barring him from ruling on any case i bring forth to A/VB or A/M, due to his hideous and demonstrable bias against me which overcomes his much atrophied common sense and his non existant perception of facts.

I do realise that it has been a long time since the ruling in question, but its been six months and i want it gone. It was insane anyway.

Of all the people on the arbies list, i will accept only Karek or Nubis, though i may be open to others throwing in their hats from outside. --The Grimch U! E! WAT! 03:32, 29 May 2008 (BST)

I can arbitrate, as I don't like or dislike any of you. You may want to pick experienced guys, but seeing that this case wouldn't have been created if you hadn't picked an "experienced" arbitrator the last time, I'll throw my hat just in case. --Starplatinum 21:17, 29 May 2008 (BST)
I'll offer to arbitrate (although I'll probably get rejected) since I'm on the page. -- Cheese 21:35, 29 May 2008 (BST)

Neither Karek nor Nubis are acceptable to me as I feel they both have a conflict of interest. I will not accept Karek on the grounds that he has shown an obvious dislike for myself and when disagreed with on a V/B case went running to Grim. I will not accept Nubis on the grounds that he has in fact shown a vocal distaste for my former group, and has personal affiliations, which while I do not think negatively affects his abilities of a sysop but does set the stage for personal bias. I am open to other suggestions however if they so choose to volunteer. Conndrakamod TTBA CFT 23:18, 29 May 2008 (BST)

If you are going to go through with this, I'd like to be on Conndraka's side of this arbitration, as I don't even see the point for this arbitration case. Show me the need for you to have to edit my pages in an unofficial manner. If there isn't one, then I don't see why it should be changed. Unless you'd rather give me some sort of equivalent exchange for me being denied the deletion pages for three months. --Akule Maker of fine, hand-crafted UDWiki sass since 2006 -- Akule School's back in session™ 23:38, 29 May 2008 (BST)
Precidents set mean that im not allowed to comment on anything you create in the administration namespace. I wasnt allowed to voice my opinion on your promotions bid, and i cannot comment in any policies you create. Also, given the wording of the ruling (not to mention how ridiculously hated i am by both the clique and a number of users), you could probably make a case against me if i commented on any discussion you get to before i did. --The Grimch U! E! WAT! 04:05, 30 May 2008 (BST)

I'll throw my hat in to arbitrate. - Jedaz - 00:37/30/05/2008

Thanks Jedaz, Starplatinum, and Cheasey, Since this is Grims baby, Im giving him the right of first refusal and then I'll evaluate among those he is willing to accept. Conndrakamod TTBA CFT 04:29, 31 May 2008 (BST)

Im waiting for someone whos judgement i can trust comes along and offers. I dont trust Cheeseman, and, as Starplatinum says, he doesnt have any experience and i havent seen him do enough to know if he is a jerk or not. As for Jedaz, he hasnt been posting here regularly for a very long time. Who knows how people change in the meantime. Im reluctant to accept him as a result. I can trust karek and Nubis to make an informed decision based on the facts, though Karek moreso than Nubis given the SA vs Conn thing going on. If you think we (Karek and I) agree on everything check my talk page where karek and i had a fight. There was no civility present. --The Grimch U! E! WAT! 05:23, 1 June 2008 (BST)

I haven't been an Arbitatortot for a while. I want to try it again. Anyone want me? --Sonny Corleone DORIS MSD pr0n 05:36, 1 June 2008 (BST)

I'll also put my hand up...just in case.--'BPTmz 07:50, 1 June 2008 (BST)

I've never taken on an arbitration case, and I offer to take this one, and I promise to remain impartial. That's two things I'm attempting to prove, so I understand if that's also two reasons not to accept me. --Funt Solo QT Scotland flag.JPG 23:07, 1 June 2008 (BST)

You think i am stupid enough to accept you when you are the first to start flaming whenever something happens involving me on A/VB or A/M? Your vitriolic rants on your personal soapbox are even more reason not to pick you. Id sooner let Conndraka arbitrate this case than you. --The Grimch U! E! WAT! 03:12, 2 June 2008 (BST)

While I would be willing to arbitrate in this case and would do my best to be fair, I do have to admit that Conndraka has a legitimate concern about me and my past. I wish to point out that in the last few months or so I have tried to tone down my "gang affiliations" and present myself as a new unbiased sysop. However, I completely understand his lack of trust. I would hope that my latest actions on the wiki (except getting pissy about that stupid misconduct case against me - I could have handled a bit better in hind sight) would show that I did turn over a new leaf. Conndraka, I can't prove that I don't hold DHPD/SA grudges (I don't - I suffered the SA short attention span and dropped out of The Dead a while ago when I went inactive on here), but I would hope that you would look over what I have been doing on the wiki the past few months and see that I have been working more for the wiki as a whole than anything group related. You are always more than welcome to bring any questions or concerns to my talk page. --– Nubis NWO 03:37, 2 June 2008 (BST)

Ironically, the only person that I can think of that would be a good choice is Katthew. She is rather smart and hates you both equally. While I know she has been nothing but venomous on here in the past of all the people I know on here I would trust her to be able to make a logical and fair decision when called upon.--– Nubis NWO 03:46, 2 June 2008 (BST)

If you are still looking for an arbitrator then I would be willing to take a look. I remember the actual case so I have some insight. I don't recal ever having any dealings with Conn and while I have clashed with Grim on many occassions I would like to think I have shown him enough respect that he would accept my even handedness?--Honestmistake 09:07, 2 June 2008 (BST)

I assume that Grim is still interested in arbitration. So in order to keep arbitration moving smoothly heres a quick list of who's nominated themselves and who have been declined. Edit the list as nessacary. - Jedaz - 00:13/5/06/2008

Arbitrators Who have Volunteered

Arbitrators Who have been Rejected

Oops, forgot about this. in the interests of getting this rolling, ill accept Honestmistake on the condition he only rules on the case at hand, and nothing outside the case. --The Grimch U! E! WAT! 05:30, 18 June 2008 (BST)

Thank you and agreed! Any objections from Conn? --Honestmistake 12:47, 18 June 2008 (BST)
Agreed, with the counter-arby being that at the result of this arbitration I'm seeking a ruling that Grim be required to maintain a professional attitude with the sysops and bureaucrats on any admin page. I don't expect anyone to like me, and being called a moron by users is par for the course, but as an admin we should be held to higher standards of behavior, and at least be able to act in a professional manner. Conndrakamod TTBA CFT 06:35, 19 June 2008 (BST)
While I too would like to see a softening of Grim's approach I don't see it happening anytime soon and I don't see this particular case as the place to make such a ruling... for a start it would invalidate my ruling on the case as he explicitly accepted me to deal only with this case. I will sort out a new page for this ASAP, just depends on how busy I am in work today! --Honestmistake 09:23, 19 June 2008 (BST)
Conndraka, four words: Over my rotting corpse.
System operators are merely users empowered to perform administrative duties because those duties cant be allowed to everyone. Theres nothing that states that our interactions with other users be civil, so long as we perform our duties correctly, without bias, and dont use our status as sysops to force our way in any given situation (eg: "I am a sysop, what i say goes you ignorant plebes!"). The reason im asking for you to not be ruling on any case i bring is because you are completely incapable of acting without bias against me, as has been shown in every single case ruling you have issued on cases i have brought. I will not allow such a restriction to be imposed on myself in my dealing with others. Its up to you to curb your stupidity, its not my job to tolerate it. --The Grimch U! E! WAT! 14:00, 25 June 2008 (BST)

Fuck.... just spent well over an hour of works time typing out a settlement only for it all to just blink out of existence!!! will try again tommorow. --Honestmistake 16:26, 26 June 2008 (BST)

Um... settlement? What about actually making the cases? --The Grimch U! E! WAT! 17:10, 26 June 2008 (BST)
bahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha --brb, church DORIS CGR U! 17:15, 26 June 2008 (BST)
Wow bob, just wow. Just when i think your contributions couldnt become more intellectually vacant you pull this out of your hat. Just out of curiosity, did any of whatever passes for thought in your primitive proto-brain actually go into the creation of that gem? --The Grimch U! E! WAT! 17:21, 26 June 2008 (BST)
I was laughing at Honest. Also, I'm still waiting on a response from you on Kevan's talk page. --brb, church DORIS CGR U! 17:30, 26 June 2008 (BST)
To what, your request that i make a page for a discussion i have no interest in? In case you hadnt gathred from my silence, the answers no. Or is it the why do i have to hurt you? To that my answer is: Because you are a masochist and are perpetually asking for it. --The Grimch U! E! WAT! 17:47, 26 June 2008 (BST)
You had no interest in a discussion with which you rather badly spammed Kevan's talk page? Good to know.
The question about why you have to hurt me was more than a little sarcastic, by the way. Interesting to see that despite your vaunted intellect you can't quite manage to pick up on what should be pretty basic conversation markers. Got some autism going there, perhaps? --brb, church DORIS CGR U! 17:55, 26 June 2008 (BST)
No, ihad no interest in the ruin discussion, which was ongoing. The discussion i was interested in, the revive imbalance one, was moved to my page long before kevan asked for it to go elsewhere. As for the rest, if you cant see a joke when its offered up, perhaps you should get your eyes checked. --The Grimch U! E! WAT! 18:50, 26 June 2008 (BST)

This is arbitration not point scoring 101, please take this elsewhere! As for my ruling before the case has been presented...the first part of your case is pretty self evident and I was going to make a common sense judgement based on that case as it was originaly made and ruled. That ruling did help to solve one problem but it spawned a whole lot more and does need revisiting. My intended ruling is intended to form a middle ground and then see if you were both happy with what I come up with.... the way I see it , the whole point of this page is as a way to settle disputes and minimize drama and bad blood. I want to get the simple part over and done before dealing with the very contentious request that I strip away a sysops power to deal with issues relating to another member of the sysop team. Arbitration should mean coming to a mutually acceptable solution if it is at all possible, I would like to think that 2 long term members of the community who have both recieved a vote of confidence in their judgements would have the same aim. Oh and Bob... nice to see you still have that cutting insight you are so recognized for--Honestmistake 09:59, 27 June 2008 (BST)

You cant rule without allowing me to present a case for my second point. Also, the ruling in question solved no problems, it only created them. --The Grimch U! E! WAT! 10:55, 27 June 2008 (BST)

I have finished a preliminary ruling on the first part of the case and would direct those involved or interested to it. This is by no means a full or final ruling but merely an attempt to unravel the 2 strands of this case into easily managable bits I think i have created the page correctly here: http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php/UDWiki:Administration/Arbitration/Grimch_vs._Conndraka Could someone who is more skilled check and be gentle with the insults if I have not...--Honestmistake 14:58, 27 June 2008 (BST)

Preliminary Ruling

It is my feeling that this current Arbitration case is really two seperate problems. The first being the Ruling on the Max Grivas/Grim vs Akule case which caused a good deal of drama and ill will as well as setting a very undisirable precedent which has led to a perception that Arbies is a place where "punishments" are dished out. As far as I am concerned this page should be about almost precisely the opposite, Arbitration is by definition the intervention (usually invited) of a nuetral and trusted third party to iron out misunderstandings and help both sides see the others point and thus negotiate a fair compromise. Arbitration only works when both sides have the same expectations and can put trust in the fairness of their arbitrator. For this reason it is clear that Conns ruling on the earlier case fell far short... in his own words the ruling was "draconian", it was also poorly defined and phrased (most seriously in not putting any time limits on some of the terms) as well as going far beyond the scope of the original case. For these reasons the ruling caused a loss of trust in the system which led to Grim utilizing loopholes to avoid the ruling (further damaging the image of this page) and later refusing (understandably) to accept any arbitration in at least one following case. While I accept that Conn's motives for the ruling were good there are few indeed who thought the ruling itself was a suitable response to the case as presented. As such unless any directly involved party (Akule, Max, Grim or Conn) wishes to put forwards strong reasons for objection I propose to have the earlier ruling struck and the following noted as its replacement

  • In the interest of avoiding conflict Akule may not post on Max and Grim's pages for a period of 3 months, likewise Max and Grim may not post on Akules for the same period. This will exclude brief and purely impersonal notices. Flame and/or troll posts aimed at and by any of the named parties will not be tolerated anywhere and if reported should be treated as vandalism citing the terms of this ruling. Again this will apply for a period of 3 months (though it should be noted that Trolling and flaming are frowned upon anyway!)
  • Akule obviously feels very strongly about the "copyright" issue... however his opinion is clearly not mirrored by the majority of the community and I am ruling that he should not post any more deletion requests for a period of 6 months unless he has specifically contacted or been contacted by the copyright holder and been asked to do so. This will apply only to such deletions that he requests based on copyright issues.

Given that this case has now blown over leaving us only to deal with the aftermath I would want this ruling back dated to the time of the original meaning that all its terms are already expired and that this ruling is merely for the archives.

As to Conndraka's role in the case I would hope that the whole incident has tought him a valuable lesson on not oversteping the bounds of expectation... An arbitration ruling should not seek to over-rule both parties opinion with the arbitors own, nor should it be an exercise in authoritarian social control. I say again that i am sure Conn was ruling as he thought best but in overstepping the accepted principles of arbitration and dictating such a harsh and arbitrary ruling he has caused a great deal of harm to the procedure (which has only recently begun to be taken seriously again) However I can think of no reasonable sanction to apply to him after so long. Striking his name from the list of arbitrators for a period might have been suitable but is pointless as people choose not from that list so much as from those who nominate themselves in any given case. Similarly pointless would be to ban him from arbitrationg any case brought by Grim, Akule or Max... I would be shocked if they accepted him. Basically I believe that the harm his ruling did to peoples perception of him is probably more likely to make him consider such actions more carefully than any sanction I am willing to apply and as such I am not minded to do anything more than the proposed change to his original ruling.--Honestmistake 14:54, 27 June 2008 (BST)

Opinions/arguments/refutations/insults

I have no objections to this. While i would like him to suffer for it, it is not a requirement of my acceptance. --The Grimch U! E! WAT! 08:03, 28 June 2008 (BST)

My view comes down to this... What the fuck ever... I made the ruling that I did because it was what was necessary to deal with the issue (hopefully once and for all)It was and still is my belief that certain actions can and should be implemented in arbitration to deal with certain situations, especially when parties involved are acting like unprofessional jerks at best and impertinent children at worst. It also continues to be my belief that Sysops and 'Crats should be held to a higher standard of conduct which must include a level of professional decorum where disagreements can be handled without the schoolyard level of behavior that we have come to expect from the wiki. Third I beleive that unless there is a policy regulating specific actions of the sysops: they have the power to do it. This is also why I am for any policy that SPECIFICALLY DICTATES rights and responsibilities of sysops without all the touchy-feely language that assumes common sense, which has been shown to not be all that common. I have serious policy view differences with Grim, but I at least respected his opinion until he started acting in a way in which devalued the contributions of others. Note: I may have been willing to adjust the ruling at the 3 or 6 month mark upon request if it had been handled with a little more decorum, but once again the maturity level of the free for all that is this wiki has developed to a point where I serious question its long term viability. Conndrakamod TTBA CFT 08:26, 28 June 2008 (BST)

Then leave. --The Grimch U! E! WAT! 19:04, 28 June 2008 (BST)
I have no doubt whatsoever that your ruling was the one you felt was right, sadly smiting those who brought the case with a blanket ban on posting in potentially every part of the wiki and without time limit was out of all proportion to the importance of the case. It had the effect of stopping direct drama between the involved parties but was still a blatantly bad ruling and led to a massive amount of bitching and wheedling that caused a good deal of harm. I too wish this could have been resolved without recourse to formal arbitration but as it wasn't I am going to take your "whatever" as acceptance of this part of the ruling and move on. Grim, as you are the one pressing this case please explain why you feel Conn should be barred from judging you. I expect firm evidence of bias here not just accusations and disagreements on how things should be interpreted/implemented. --Honestmistake 19:19, 28 June 2008 (BST)
Tomorrow, im about to go to bed and its 4:30am local. --The Grimch U! E! WAT! 19:22, 28 June 2008 (BST)

Cool, so once this case is over, I'll just create a new case to overturn this one, and use this case as precedence. K? --Akule Maker of fine, hand-crafted UDWiki sass since 2006 -- Akule School's back in session™ 00:24, 10 July 2008 (BST)

exactly why would you do that? I have overturned (and replaced) the terms set by Conn with a set of pretty similar but clearer defined ones that explicitly set out to remove the cause of drama rather than inflame it. Your postings on Deletions were pissing everyone off and since you stopped (and thankfully did not re-start) there has been an end to such drama. Indeed your sensible and mature decision to deal with the issue in other ways has actually won you a fair bit of respect (from me at least) Arbitration should not be about punishment, it is about finding a fair conclusion to a problem between users. Conn's ruling was not a fair one in that, while it solved one problem its methods of doing so were not in the spirit of arbitration and were poorly defined. The actual case probably never should have been brought in the first place but that is hardly the point!--Honestmistake 11:37, 10 July 2008 (BST)
Why? You have to ask me that question? Sure. Let's start.
  1. I asked to join the case, but was never notified of the start, never asked to present anything (such as show need), never notified of the decision, etc. It was like I wasn't involved in the case, yet was ruled against for a longer period of time than Conn recommended. Why wasn't I involved with a case that obviously involved me?
  2. Both you and Conn specifically said that the original case should probably not have been put forth, but decided to slap unneeded punishments (or a "non punishment ruling" in your case) upon me. I can look at your user page at the template at the top to see why you made your ruling the way you did (as you were always hot over those posts), despite acknowledging that I had worked out an agreeable compromise with Hagnat and the rest of the wiki which resulted in the image categorization (a good thing), and had not posted a copyright deletion post in over a year. What was the point of adding the postdated six month banning, really? It especially does not make sense since you are saying that I am not to be punished now, but that I already "served my time" and that it is simply for archival purposes. I don't feel that you should add it in the first place if you aren't actually going to institute it, work out the case with people, or dismiss the case outright if it really "probably never should have been brought in the first place" (as that is exactly the point of my original argument). According to this ruling, I was punished far more harshly for a case that you admit should never have been made. Does that make any sense?
  3. What drama? Grim is the only one making any drama in this case. You'll note that since the case, the drama related between Grim and myself has dramatically gone down. Grim admits that it was a long time since the ruling in question, but there is no specific instance that he can point out as to why exactly he needs the case overturned now. Why does he need to post on my pages in an unofficial manner? What burning comment does he have to make on one of my pages that requires this ruling to be overturned? He can still post on them in an official manner and he is allowed to vote on anything I put forth in the administration pages. However, how many times have I made a page in the administration pages that Grim was barred from commenting on since the ruling? Can you count them on one hand? If so, then why reverse the ruling on a case that not only prevents drama, but has no need to be overturned?
  4. Lastly, if this case goes through as given, that will mean that the arbitration pages are useless. Why should anyone accept any case's outcome? Just continually resubmit/overturn/barrage the arbitration pages until you get the ruling you want, like some sort of magic 8-ball. If this page is "not for punishments" as you stated then get your happy ass back here and make both sides to firmly agree to drop the case or work out their differences instead of handing out post-dated 3-to-6 month page editing bans that do nothing. I am quite happy with having Grim banned from my pages and I from his, but if he wants to work it out, I suppose I could. This case doesn't solve the problem between us (psst Grim, act like the trusted user you are supposed to be) and just makes these arbitration pages useless. If you want to reverse "draconian" rulings because they bar someone from a page, then you need to reverse any and all arbitrations that involve banning a user from going to any page. Here, you can start here, as The Abandoned don't mind Anime and I posting on their pages again.
Is that good enough for a start? --Akule Maker of fine, hand-crafted UDWiki sass since 2006 -- Akule School's back in session™ 23:24, 10 July 2008 (BST)
The template you refer to was made by someone else (the comment was all mine) and was based on your actions at that, now long distant, time. As I stated above, my opinion has changed a fair bit since because of your mature response to everyones clear disdain for your attitude and I am pretty sure you could search about and find examples of me agreeing with you since. My ruling laid down no punishments but merely sanctions to separate the parties from major conflict zones... those sanctions were mostly toned down versions of what Conn had originally listed but with clearer limits stated. The case was made and ruled and as such cannot be made to just disapear, however the punishment clauses can be removed and given I posted this ruling on the 27th you have sure taken your sweet time to make any comment on it when you were explicitly asked to do so if you had anything to add
  • "As such unless any directly involved party (Akule, Max, Grim or Conn) wishes to put forwards strong reasons for objection I propose to have the earlier ruling struck and the following noted as its replacement"
You have a problem with my ruling on your involvement then feel free to discuss why in the week after reading the result... you have waited this long for some reason (perhaps inactivity) and as you make good points i will take the time to look at them and answer properly.... just not now as I am off to the pub!--Honestmistake 21:20, 11 July 2008 (BST)
I don't recall being told that the case started, much less that it had been ruled upon. I understand what you are trying to do for the case, but I just have to simply ask again: Why does grim need to post on my pages in an unofficial manner? Reversing the administration part of things is fine with me, and I can accept that as a compromise. --Akule Maker of fine, hand-crafted UDWiki sass since 2006 -- Akule School's back in session™ 19:46, 17 July 2008 (BST)
Akule, Drama between us has gone down because you took several extended vacations from the wiki and i dont hold grudges and follow people around seeking drama when i believe i have been wronged. Thats got nothing to do with Conns ruling. --The Grimch U! E! 13:02, 11 July 2008 (BST)
Actually, you do. A simple check through your contributions can very easily show how you hound individuals to either leave the wiki or you arrange to vandal ban them out (as you may recall that being brought to light). As for how this doesn't relate to Conn's ruling, I'd like to ask how you not being able to rule on anything that involves me is draconian, but Conn not being able to rule on anything involving you is justice. Unless we are talking about this statement:
Grim_s said:
Making a new sysop subclass wont solve this problem, all it will do is bloat the numbers of idiot sysops, which i have spent the last 18 months whittling away at.
I find that you tend to seek me out more than I do you, and the only reason why I usually pop in is because I have found that you have name-dropped me in a number of conversations, even if I haven't been around or have not said or done anything to you. Frankly, you have done a lot of work for the wiki, but I have to agree with Kevan's opinion of you, which is why I originally stepped up to point out inconsistencies in your decisions, to chide you when you went over the line, or to point out favoritism. If you acted in a reasonable manner and didn't actively try to drive away users, I wouldn't have any problem with you. --Akule Maker of fine, hand-crafted UDWiki sass since 2006 -- Akule School's back in session™ 15:09, 11 July 2008 (BST)
Without a means of eliminating problem sysops other means needed to be devised and implimented. Im not proud of what i have done, but it needed to be done, and the sysops that are gone because of it are ones we definately should have gotten rid of long ago. As for what kevan thinks of me, i simply do not care what he thinks of me. He isnt even a part of this community. Sure, he runs the software, and he owns the server and made the game, but he has at every stage resisted all attempts by myself an others to interact with the community. It is his single greatest flaw in his management of this game, and until he starts participating, ill treat his opinions on community matters like i treat any other lurking spectators: With complete and utter derision. --The Grimch U! E! 15:17, 11 July 2008 (BST)
What makes you the best judge of who to get rid of and who is a problem sysop? Shouldn't that be a community decision rather than involving a painful process of vandalism cases, misconduct cases, and flurries of hate-filled posts? If you recall, I proposed a process of automatic sysop cycling that would have placed the matter in the hands of the community, who (should) give a damn about the wiki. I agree that Kevan is very hands-off lest he takes a personal interest in something, but surely we can come up with something better than what has been done so far. --Akule Maker of fine, hand-crafted UDWiki sass since 2006 -- Akule School's back in session™ 16:07, 11 July 2008 (BST)

Arbitration Part 2. Grim's case

I withdraw this part of the case, for numerous reasons including but not limited to: Lack of time to carry this out due to personal responsibilities both online and IRL as well as work, the fact that this wiki doesnt need the drama this would create, and overall fatigue with the issue. I have my hunk of flesh, ill settle for that. --The Grimch U! E! 12:59, 11 July 2008 (BST)

Your hunk of flesh? --Honestmistake 21:06, 11 July 2008 (BST)

Closed?

Can we officially close this now or are we going to continue the Wiki's longest running single arby request? Conndrakamod TTBA CFT 22:25, 27 August 2008 (BST)

Sorry, I have not been active lately. Feel free to archive this in the darkest parts of the cellar. Grim dropped it after part 1 and i forgot all about it after he declined to make a case on part 2. --Honestmistake 18:26, 28 August 2008 (BST)
Retrieved from "http://wiki.urbandead.com//index.php?title=UDWiki:Administration/Arbitration/Grim_s_vs_Conndraka&oldid=1481720"