UDWiki:Administration/Arbitration/Amazing vs The Faggots

Ruling

"Amazing vs. The Faggots" would be a great name for a band.Jjames 22:13, 19 April 2006 (BST)

Proof of JJames's willful disregard for this system and the Wiki. -- Amazing 03:08, 20 April 2006 (BST)

In what way? The fact that I'm trying to provide levity to a frustrating situation? I think you are the one with willing disregard for the wiki. You dragged me into arbitration without any specific complaints and with no proof. Your proof that I need to be ruled against for arbitration is that I made a joke during the arbitration. If you have any actual evidence to bring against me or any specific complaints, do so now. Otherwise, I've already been told that I will not be ruled against. Jjames 04:01, 20 April 2006 (BST)

And doesn't this show willful disregard for the wiki?Template:NoWiki

You don't seem to show any respect for the wiki.Jjames 05:33, 20 April 2006 (BST)

Call it "Amazing vs. Sanity and Reason" and we could put most Arbitation cases here. -Craw 05:56, 20 April 2006 (BST)

Arbiters

I accept Hagnat as arbitrator, but I thought I had already been cleared of all this. The Faggots have no connection to any of these complaints. This is going nowhere. How many more days have to pass before Amazing fills the basic requirement for bringing forth arbitration towards me? Namely specific complaints and proof?Jjames 09:04, 20 April 2006 (BST)

Actually, no-one has been cleared yet. I believe if you just keep your trap shut and wait for someone else to comment on your position, you'll get a better chance to plead your case. --Cyberbob240^CDF 09:07, 20 April 2006 (BST)

Please mind your own business. You aren't involved in this arbitration in any way and I'm in no mood to get involved in petty beefs. The General already said we were in the clear unless Amazing presented further proof. He has yet to do so. I really just want this to end, so I can use the wiki in peace. Please do not respond to me any further here, as I can not see how a discussion with an uninvolved third party can help.Jjames 09:12, 20 April 2006 (BST)

I'm not involved, am I? I'm the person who advised Amazing to start this case, after a comment from The General stating that Amazing would probably win one. Not involved, eh? --Cyberbob240^CDF 09:26, 20 April 2006 (BST)

No, you are not involved. You are not the one who filed the complaint and you aren't the one accused. You are not the arbitrator, so I don't see the need for any other input. Your comments are in no way helpful to resolving the situation, and since you advised Amazing, they could also be considered biased. I would prefer if you leave me alone. I am not trying to fight anyone here, just settle a rather frustrating arbitration. I have been nothing but respectful here, and I merely ask for the same respect. I have never intruded into anyone elses dispute. Please don't intrude in mine.Jjames 09:36, 20 April 2006 (BST)

OK then, I won't ever offer someone advice again. Geez... --Cyberbob240^CDF 09:38, 20 April 2006 (BST)

We have apparently found Amazing's research assistant. You may want to let him speak for himself. People dont take kindly to attitudes like yours around here. Rasher 14:50, 20 April 2006 (BST)

Unless Amazing provide some 'evidence' that the Faggots are involved in any harrasment behaviour agaisnt him, there is nothing to be arbitrated here. And, cyberbob, do not post on other people's cases if you are not -directly= involved in that. This case is Amazing vs. The Faggots, not Amazing and Cyberbob vs. The Faggots. --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{[cloned] [mod]} 18:24, 20 April 2006 (BST)

OK, I'm sorry - really. Feel free to delete my silly comments if you so wish. --Cyberbob240^{CDF | Arb} 09:42, 21 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 02:59, 22 April 2006 (BST)

You already said you accepted hagnat. He has already ruled against you. Either post evidence and a specific complaint or leave me alone.22:47, 22 April 2006 (BST)

Events have rendered hagnat's decision moot (wasn't my doing, someone else reposted and splintered all this) and I'll get to this case when I get to it. Keep your pants on and go sit down. -- Amazing 23:47, 23 April 2006 (BST)

His decision is not moot. You said that you accepted him as arbitrator and he ruled that I was cleared. Scroll up and you'll see that he said that. You have never posted evidence against me or even a specific complaint, both of which are require to begin arbitration. You have been disrespectful during the process and not accepting an arbitrators decision that you have already agreed upon means you can't choose a new one. This amounts to pure harassment.Jjames 06:35, 24 April 2006 (BST)

If there is still a need for an arbitrator, I'll volunteer--Vista ^W! 18:31, 25 April 2006 (BST)

This case was cleared. Unless Amazing has any evidence to post then we abide by Hagnat's desision. Oh, and i'm prepared to arbitrate this case if both parties will agree.--The General ^{W! Mod} 19:34, 25 April 2006 (BST)

If Amazing posts evidence and this case is reopened, I am willing to accept you as moderator.Jjames 21:54, 25 April 2006 (BST)

I'm on a deadline and have other things to attent to on this site as well. More will be posted, as I have ALWAYS said, when I can do it. This case was split up without my approval and my initial case was a blanken one against multiple users as these cases against groups are cases against multiple users. It shouldn't have been split without my approval. -- Amazing 02:33, 26 April 2006 (BST)

You shouldn't have brought a case against me if you couldn't provide evidence immediatly. The burden of proof is on you, after all. Even before it was split up, hagnat and The General both cleared me and said that there was no evidence against me. I think it was irresponsible to bring such a large case foward without preparing evidence in the first place. Had you provided specific complaints backed with evidence for each person or group invovled, it wouldn't have been necessary to break this up. You have failed to live up to your obligations of arbitration and thus your approval is moot.Jjames 03:44, 26 April 2006 (BST)