UDWiki talk:Administration/Arbitration/Lh778 vs Finis Valorum

Lh778 vs Finis Valorum

What is the case--Karek^maps?! 15:57, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

The case... trenchy says "why did you kill me?"... annoying PKer replies "because you made a template saying I sux"... trenchy replies "but it's not a template aimed at you, it's a general annoying idiot template"... annoying PKer says "well take my name off it then"... idiot trenchy says "but you do sux, you killed me, you sux!!!!111 answer that!!!!111"... annoying PKer deletes idiotic conversation from own talk page... trenchy reverts, demanding answers... annoying PKer deletes idiotic conversation from own talk page... repeat, ad infinitum -- boxy ^{talk • i} 16:26 28 December 2007 (BST)

This almost sounds more like a VB case than "arbitration".--Jorm 00:21, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

True, but if it can be sorted out without bans and warnings, so much the better--Seventythree^Talk 00:22, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Untrue, it can't be without setting yet another precedent for blatant misuse of arbitration services. It's vandalism and should not/can not be dealt with here.--Karek^maps?! 04:57, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

It's already there, just no one's game to rule on it -- boxy ^{talk • i} 06:17 29 December 2007 (BST)

I know, it just shouldn't be here at all though. Well, that and someone needs to rule on the case already.--Karek^maps?! 06:56, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

If I could just quickly ask what about my previous conduct as arbitrator makes you untrusting of me? I'm genuinely not looking to start an argument or anything, it's jsut I realy do appreciate helpful criticism, and if you think I'm going wrong somewhere vital then I'd quite like to know, after all, experiance is just remembering your past mistakes!--Seventythree^Talk 17:30, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

I didn't post it here because it would have just added to the case without being about the case, meet me in IRC some time and we can talk.--Karek^maps?! 18:15, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

How very fishy

Hmm. I smell Fish. Considering the history Karek (and the RRF) has with Finis the zerger....I mean...Valorum, It seems strange that he would ask Karek to represent for him. --User:Axe27/Sig 22:08, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Considering the history of the Gore Corps drama I'm not. I was pretty much the only one who was trying to sooth things over and have been nothing but civil towards Finis.--Karek^maps?! 06:03, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Moving Comments

Burn Them!

BURN THEM! BURN THEM ALL! HE'S A WITCH I SAY! A WITCH--Thekooks 19:51, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Do you have anything constructive to add to the case?--The General ^{T Sys U! P! F!} 20:18, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I think this case is fucking ridiculous, just an excuse for a witch hunt..quickly grab a pitchfork before he gets away--Thekooks 21:36, 29 December 2007 (UTC).

if you're not putting yourself up for arbitor or presenting something to do with the case, then please keep your comments to the talk page.--'BP^Tmz 00:22, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

The General

So what now? Are you 2 just gonna go through the list and disagree with pretty much every arbitrator? --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ ^{#nerftemplatedsigs} 15:46, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

come to think of it, what happens if they cant pick an arbitor? also just out of curiosity karek beside the fact that this would be my first case do you have any other problems with me as arbitor?--'BP^Tmz 16:11, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

yeah it was a joke...although i would do it if you wanted me to :P perhaps the rules need to be edited to allow a maximum of 3 vetoes each, otherwise Karek's only going to agree to one possible candidate and naturally Lh778 is going to disagree, fair enough considering if Karek wants him so bad there must be something going on...--Jed 22:43, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

hmmmm maybe karek can arbitrate?--'BP^Tmz 22:52, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

He's representing Finis Valorum. He can't. --User:Axe27/Sig 22:54, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

whoosh right over your head.....--'BP^Tmz 23:07, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

So it's safe to assume that I'm the only one thats gotten it so far?-- dǝǝɥs oʇ ɯɐds: sʎɐʍ1ɐ! 23:08, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the only reasons I agreed to The General are that he is actually a neutral third party as he hasn't even had any contact with me, you'll find that is actually very rare. He's one of the oldest users on the wiki, has been involved in A/A more than just about anyone else except our two resident banned drama mongers, is a sysop, and unlike most volunteers has had a long and storied history with the wiki's rules, having been around when many of them were created.--Karek^maps?! 06:26, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Matthew Farenheit

If you want me, I can arbitrate this case. As you requested, here I link the only case I have arbitrated (may I add, sucessfully) so far: The General vs Hagnat. I can assure both parties that I won't overstep my place as an Arbitrator with ridiculous rulings not pertaining the case boundaries, I will follow proper procedure almost to the extreme and I won't take an exceedingly long ammount of time to reach the ruling as long as you don't dissappear yourselves. --Matthew Fahrenheit ^YRC☺T☺+1 02:11, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

thats funny. you know Karek wont accept you, right matt? which is a shame as im sure you would at least try to be fair.--'BP^Tmz 03:35, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Karek is acting in what he intereprets as Finis Valorum's best interests, so he should because MF does not know or has had very little contact with the two combatants. --User:Axe27/Sig 03:37, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I'd try to be fair, yes, but whether I get chosen or not depends on both parties best judgement. Let's drop the speculation ok? --Matthew Fahrenheit ^YRC☺T☺+1 03:47, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

I'd expect Matthewfarenheit to attempt to be fair, even if we haven't always gotten along.--Karek^maps?! 06:26, 31 December 2007 (UTC)