UDWiki:Administration/Arbitration/Iscariot vs MisterGame

User:Iscariot versus User:MisterGame

Given the content of this interim ruling it is evident to me that User:MisterGame has exceeded the mandate of arbitrator and is wildly moving beyond the authority of an arbitrator. In short his blanket extension of the case outside the bounds agreed by the two parties makes him far too incompetent to arbitrate users in this community.

I seek the following:

• User:MisterGame to be barred from arbitrating cases until he has sufficiently proven his knowledge of the process and the possible effects his actions could cause
• The interim ruling on the case in question to be made null and void
• A new arbitrator assigned to the case in question to resolve a dispute that has been dragging on for far too long.

-- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 11:18, 18 October 2009 (BST)

I'm honestly with you, he is in way over his head.--CyberRead240 11:19, 18 October 2009 (BST)

Yeaaaaaaahhhhhhhhh, no. Enough with this shit. --Thadeous Oakley 11:21, 18 October 2009 (BST)

Also, if you had actually read, I haven't made any actual ruling...--Thadeous Oakley 11:24, 18 October 2009 (BST)

You made an 'interim ruling' that was absolutely unnecessary. I find you to be completely unsuited to even arbitrate the most basic of cases and will continue this case to make sure you don't screw with the users in the case in question or any in future. I will accept Boxy, Link or Yonnua. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 11:27, 18 October 2009 (BST)

You do realize Thad, all you have to do is say "Jed get reads name off the page and before you add anyone else make sure you get their permission to see if they want to legitimately be in the club before adding them". Oh look, I did your job in 2 seconds.--CyberRead240 11:28, 18 October 2009 (BST)

Seconded. "The page" being the ALiM one, mind. --DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION-- 11:30, 18 October 2009 (BST)

Yeah, it is probably the most clear cut case since Cyberbob vs Public Pre Schools Union of Victoria--CyberRead240 11:31, 18 October 2009 (BST)

• User:MisterGame to be barred from arbitrating cases until he has sufficiently proven his knowledge of the process and the possible effects his actions could cause

Yeah, I'm really looking forward to my next arb case, and I'm sure everyone would stand in row to accept me, <sarcasm>

• The interim ruling on the case in question to be made null and void

Why bother, I already made a final ruling anyway.

• A new arbitrator assigned to the case in question to resolve a dispute that has been dragging on for far too long.

And dragging it on even further then? My god, they were right! YOU are a genius, Iscariot!--Thadeous Oakley 11:45, 18 October 2009 (BST)

Given User:MisterGame has continued to act in a manner that caused the bringing of this case in the first place, I'd like it noted that this case now disputes both his interim and final rulings. I will accept Boxy, Link or Yonnua. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 11:46, 18 October 2009 (BST)

This is stupid. If Bob, DDR, Read, J3D and Nick all disagree with my final ruling then they are free to start over with a different arbitrator altogether. It's not up to you since your not involved at all. But hey, don't let me stop you. --Thadeous Oakley 12:21, 18 October 2009 (BST)

No they can't do that as they are bound to accept the ruling when they agree to arbitration, something you'd know if you had the slightest idea about this process. Arbitration is about user disputes. I dispute both your rulings, whether the original case was about me or not is irrelevant, your rulings do not stand until this process is resolved. Do you agree to my arbitrator selection, or would you like to be represented? -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 12:27, 18 October 2009 (BST)

Oh, so now my rulings don't stand? Didn't know every user has carte blanch to overthrow any arbitration case they wish.--Thadeous Oakley 13:07, 18 October 2009 (BST)

No, they don't stand because they are disputed edits. They are disputed edits based on your complete lack of understanding of this process and your obvious unsuitability by removing J3D's three days to respond that you had given in order to cover your own ass from criticism. I will be leaving this case open and continuing to dispute your rulings until you accept arbitration or representation. I'd recommend picking either Rosslessness or WanYao to represent you if they are willing, as they're two of the users that stand a chance of defending your disastrous conduct. I will not accept Cyberbob as he is involved with the case in which you ruled and it would be a conflict of interest. I will not accept Fanglord, Drunk Link2500 or Haliman because I doubt their ability to understand this process more than yours. Kevan has repeatedly declined to engage in the running of this community and so would not act as arbitrator. Of my choices, I think one is a biased and unfit sysop, one is frightened of drama and the other I called completely ineffectual yesterday. My choices don't have a positive bias towards me and so will judge the case on its merits. I will also accept User:Revenant. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 15:05, 18 October 2009 (BST)

Hey, Listen!--Thadeous Oakley 15:12, 18 October 2009 (BST)

Did you call me completely ineffectual yesterday? Anyway, Thad, I'd recommend takign the case to get rid of it. As he says, it'll stay here until you confront it.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 15:09, 18 October 2009 (BST)

I also accept J3D.--Thadeous Oakley 15:12, 18 October 2009 (BST)

I will not accept Cyberbob J3D as he is involved with the case in which you ruled and it would be a conflict of interest. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 15:14, 18 October 2009 (BST)

HagnaT!--Thadeous Oakley 15:17, 18 October 2009 (BST)

Hagnat has a clear history of trolling and bad faith edits regarding me. He would not be an unbiased choice as arbitrator. I have yet to hear cogent rebuttals to my selections, and one of them has already offered to begin this case. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 15:35, 18 October 2009 (BST)

Here are your cogent rebuttals regarding your suggestions: I think one is a biased and unfit sysop, one is frightened of drama and the other you called completely ineffectual yesterday. Thanks for that BTW, now I don't have to make up my own shit.--Thadeous Oakley 17:48, 18 October 2009 (BST)

Oh yeah, I also am willing to accept Honestmistake. --Thadeous Oakley 17:49, 18 October 2009 (BST)

Oh, and I don't know this Revenant at all. --Thadeous Oakley 17:57, 18 October 2009 (BST)

I'm willing to arbitrate this case if Thad will accept me.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 12:32, 18 October 2009 (BST)

I will accept Cyberbob, Fanglord, Drunk Link2500, Haliman and Kevan. --Thadeous Oakley 12:58, 18 October 2009 (BST)

I'm willing to arbitrate this case if Iscariot will accept me. Cyberbob  Talk  13:16, 18 October 2009 (BST)

And I need representation, cuz Im I don't have the time nor interest in this absolute shit fest. Any volunteers that want to represent me? --Thadeous Oakley 13:20, 18 October 2009 (BST)

eh, just leave it - this might all go away...xoxo 13:26, 18 October 2009 (BST)

yeah, probably not, might as well make fun of this. You in?--Thadeous Oakley 13:29, 18 October 2009 (BST)

asdfasgsfbwgbfrnelgkbmgbjed's right Cyberbob  Talk  13:33, 18 October 2009 (BST)

SCC4lyf bitches.xoxo 13:36, 18 October 2009 (BST)

Okaydokey then. I leave this alone.--Thadeous Oakley 13:37, 18 October 2009 (BST)

Seems like MisterGame doesn't want to be represented. Going to be a one sided arbies then I guess. --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 13:39, 18 October 2009 (BST)

Let me get this straight. The arbies case presented by Iscariot covers both the arbitrator and his rulings, correct?-- SA 15:24, 18 October 2009 (BST)

Who knows. The final ruling seems to been accepted by all the parties, making this redundant. Iscariot's dispute is being ignored anyway, since J3D is complying with the ruling for example.--Thadeous Oakley 15:27, 18 October 2009 (BST)

Again your ignorance of the process is showing. As they are disputed your rulings do not stand, I would be well within my rights to remove them from the case page and request protection until this is resolved. If J3D decided to place those individuals back on his page your ruling would not be a basis for an A/VB case as it is disputed and therefore non-applicable to J3D until this dispute is over. If your conduct was perfectly OK and acceptable, why wouldn't this be immediately apparent to a third party arbitrator? All your dodging does is prove that you are an unfit arbitrator and that you are (rightly) afraid that you cannot defend your actions. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 15:35, 18 October 2009 (BST)

Ah sobs, stop being such a meany! ;o; --Thadeous Oakley 17:55, 18 October 2009 (BST)

I can arby.. --Haliman - Talk 17:27, 18 October 2009 (BST)

I actually suggested you, if you look up the page, but alas. --Thadeous Oakley 17:55, 18 October 2009 (BST)

Yeah, I read through it. Is the case going to proceed, or is everyone gonna keep arguing on A/A? --Haliman - Talk 17:58, 18 October 2009 (BST)

They'll argue. Neither side is willing to agree on an arbitrator, because that would mean proceeding with the case, somethign neither side really wants to do.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 18:00, 18 October 2009 (BST)

Are you fucking daft? J3D should NOT be given the ability to make as many groups and pages as he wants. I volunteer to arbitrate the disputed case if the outcome of this case requires it.-- SA 15:32, 18 October 2009 (BST)

Are you? Anyone can create (group)pages as much as he or she likes. You want to prohibit J3D the right to make pages? Yeah, that's totally implementable and within the power of the arbitrator. --Thadeous Oakley 17:52, 18 October 2009 (BST)

People can and will be warned if they start spam making groups and pages that serve no purpose other than he wants to have fun by simply making them. Yes there are limits to what we can warn for when it comes to page making (Like Conn's Families of Malton shit? That was about a flavor/fluff UD thing, so it was okay (I guess. :/)), but when it comes to making multiple group pages pretty much for the hell of it, all that is is making more work for us down the road. Had you given some limits in your ruling, there'd be less of a problem. You have no right to tell someone they can make a thousand groups that they can't POSSIBLY be a part of. You over stepped your arbitrator bounds there. And yes, actually you CAN prohibit page making, albeit only temporary. Either learn to arbitrate or don't take the job please. Look past your hostility towards me and see that your final ruling DID have some serious flaws that will cause trouble down the line.-- SA 18:17, 18 October 2009 (BST)

Heh, I'll offer. Even though Iscariot will never accept. --Karek^maps?! 18:00, 18 October 2009 (BST)

Damn, should have suggested you then. --Thadeous Oakley 18:03, 18 October 2009 (BST)

As Karek. I'm free now. --Haliman - Talk 18:04, 18 October 2009 (BST)

Rule in my favor, and I will forgive you for pulling the "gone for good" card twice now.--Thadeous Oakley 18:06, 18 October 2009 (BST)

I'll represent MG if he so wishes. Although I may have to print out the original case, read it a couple of times and ask some questions about the time line. --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 19:08, 18 October 2009 (BST)

If you're representign him, do you pick an arbitrator for him? Because presently, it would appear he has no intention of doing so.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 21:17, 18 October 2009 (BST)

He accepted me and Bob. We're all waiting for izzy now. --Haliman - Talk 21:22, 18 October 2009 (BST)

He accepted both of you because Iscariot refused you. He doesn't want the case to go forwards. Which is quite silly really, because either way, it'll be quite fast, and even if he loses, Iscariot's ridiculous demands aren't going to be met.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 21:26, 18 October 2009 (BST)

His demands are far from ridiculous. I've outlined why one of them is perfectly acceptable up there.-- SA 21:28, 18 October 2009 (BST)

He accepted Boxy, Link or Yonnua before you offered. And how would you get around percieved Bias? --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 21:30, 18 October 2009 (BST)

I was mainly talking about the "Banned until he can prove he's the best" one. It goes straight against the "any user can arbitrate" policy. Not only that, but how would he show his limitless understanding of arbies guidelines? Are we going to demand a test now?--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 21:31, 18 October 2009 (BST)

It's not entirely unreasonable to ban a user from arbitrating if they are that bad. It keeps a new user from letting their important case get raped by a shitty arbitrator. Wanna know how he'd show his knowledge? By making comments on cases (like he is quite able to do, and does so frequently if I'm not mistaken) to show his ability to judge how cases should have been done, how they should go, his thoughts and opinions on the situation, etc.-- SA21:38, 18 October 2009 (BST)

The participants in the last case chose him specifically, and he shouldn't be penalised for being picked for a case when he was inexperienced. Say he gets banned, and then he immediately reads up on wiki-law until he's the master of A/A. He's then forbidden from arbitrating until several cases pop up for him to comment on. Sure, not so tough with iscariot around, but normally they're very rare. The only way I'd deem it acceptable was a time limit, not testign whether he was good or not. Maybe a discalimer before future arbitration too.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 21:44, 18 October 2009 (BST)

Your all making my ruling allot worse then it essential is. All involved parties have actually accepted the ruling you know. Sure it isn't perfect, probably could have gone allot better, but this is just way, way Overkill. Taking away my right to arbitrate? It's not like I can't wait for my next try, I honestly am sick of it, and nobody would accept me anyway. Completely unreasonable this shit.--Thadeous Oakley 21:59, 18 October 2009 (BST)

Personally, I don't think you should lose it, I'm just saying what I think would be the only acceptable manner in which it could possibly be executed in my opinion.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 22:13, 18 October 2009 (BST)

Iscariot takes you to arbitration, however the final ruling is deflected by a large red beach ball. Does the ruling stand? --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 21:34, 18 October 2009 (BST)

The thing I don't understand about the previous case was why didn't everyone just removed their names? After all it was a group page, and you were all listed as members of said group, so you would have been well within your rights to edit your group page to remove your names. --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 22:08, 18 October 2009 (BST)

Would've been an edit war, as seen recently with DDR trying to categorise one of Jed's pages.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 22:13, 18 October 2009 (BST)

Not to mention when Bob tried to remove his name from the 2CFC. --DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION-- 00:12, 19 October 2009 (BST)

This case is fucking stupid. All the parties of the case in question have accepted the apparently oh-so-terrible-and-draconian final ruling (which specifically allows J3D to make groups and shit as long as he doesn't include people against their will), so it would be cool if people stopped giving Iscariot's peanut gallery fetish validity. Cyberbob  Talk  00:55, 19 October 2009 (BST)

I'm taking you to a/a for that use of <big> big is the sole property of 2 cool and their fan club. If you want to make large text please use span in the future.xoxo 05:09, 19 October 2009 (BST)

Bitch please. the big tags still belong to assylum. I renewed the patent before 2cool was made. {{Hyperbig|Fucker.}}-- SA 07:29, 19 October 2009 (BST)

And I would like to point out that Mistergame editing my comment like that can be easily misconstrued as breaking the arbitration ruling given by boxxxy. Now, if he will kindly ask me to remove my sexy hyper big, I could easily comply. No need for him to get v& over this yet, right?-- SA 12:08, 19 October 2009 (BST)

Your hyperbig covered Bob and J3D comments making it impossible for me to properly read, that's why. And I honestly did want to leave a note, but that same arb rule you mentioned prevents me from editing your talk page. For some strange reason, the hyperbig template now doesn't cover up the text and seems to have become smaller. Might have something to do with the issue that I'm sitting on a different PC with a different webbrowser now. Anyone else who has or had a problem with it?--Thadeous Oakley 14:27, 19 October 2009 (BST)

It only partially covers up their comments, it was kind of the point of it. You know, show who is in charge of the big tags around here and stuff. Anyway, even ommiting the covered parts of their comments I was still able to read them. If you ask nicely though I will remove it. and probably rape the cases talk page in the end with it-- SA 14:50, 19 October 2009 (BST)

This kind of templates fuck up the formatting pretty good, so yeah they are probably better on talk and user pages. So would now you kindly I mean, pleeeasee remove it, oh mighty wielder of big tags. --Thadeous Oakley 14:59, 19 October 2009 (BST)

Sho ting brosef. And if you try that would you kindly shit on me again I'mma pull out a fucking wrench and hurt you. >: ( -- SA 15:19, 19 October 2009 (BST)

Yes, that would be the appropriate course of action, in a case where two of the involved people weren't sysops that is. The assumption is that you guys would normally not enforce a ruling that goes beyond arbitration's delegated privileges but it's essentially coming up as a matter of lack of faith on the part of the sysops involved. That being said, none of the demands requested are particularly appropriate or, currently, the issue being raised valid. It's been resolved, MisterGame essentially conceded the point and ruled appropriately. --Karek^maps?! 22:32, 19 October 2009 (BST)

This page might be due a cull to the talk page shortly. I'm still continuing this case, MisterGame is incompetent and acted inappropriately. One wonders given that Yonnua has already stated I don't have a case why MisterGame doesn't confirm him as arbitrator considering I've already nominated him. Could it be that he knows I'll prove my points openly and publicly. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 15:36, 20 October 2009 (BST)

If I was chosen as Arbitrator, I'd put aside my personal opinion, and consider all aspects of the case. For example, SA raises several key issues that the arbitrator will need to address. If that's me, then I'd evaluate everything before ruling. (Which would probably take me about an hour or so, unless I need further info.)--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 20:00, 20 October 2009 (BST)

I offer to arbitrate. Granted, I rarely contribute beyond the odd DangerReport or RRF contrib, and do not regularly participate within the overall administration and related debate. On the other hand, no preconceived notions involving the two people involved. -Wulfenbach 05:40, 21 October 2009 (BST)

Just a note to state that I am still pursuing this, and thus both rulings are still contested. Before this issue gets caught up with the upcoming case. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 19:04, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Another case? Let me guess, Iscariot Vs The Sysops : "I want them to stop having conspiracies!!!"--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 19:24, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Nah, he has misconduct for anything sysops related. --Thadeous Oakley 13:39, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

I am willing to arbitrate as neutral to the entire dispute, if both parties would like. --Maverick ^{Talk - OBR 404} 21:12, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Is this arbitration still pending? Neither party has agreed to an arbitrator, and there has been no further discussion of nominating one in over a fortnight. --Maverick ^{Talk - OBR 404} 08:09, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Many thanks from the rest of the wiki for reminding Iscariot of the existence of this case. Cyberbob  Talk  08:37, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Regardless of whether or not Iscariot "forgot" about this case, the fact remains that it was brought here a month ago and still has not begun. The two parties need to decide on an arbiter so the case can actually start (and quickly finish), or it needs to be dropped. --Maverick ^{Talk - OBR 404} 08:48, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

You know Izzy- he didn't forget. --DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION-- 09:07, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Of course he didn't forget, as his remarks on his own talk page show. Still pursuing this case and disputing both rulings. I've already selected several arbitrators and allowed MisterGame to be represented if he chooses, I've even pointed him towards users that have some chance of defending his conduct. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 15:22, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Just as I have already selected several arbitrators as well. Don't start without me. --Thadeous Oakley 15:35, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

You know how biased I am against you? Revenant is the exact opposite. I promise you he's probably the only neutral choice Iscariot picked.-- SA 19:15, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Two months till case started, one month since it last had any conversation. Archived. --

 

 

 

 

00:20, 16 December 2009 (UTC)