UDWiki talk:Administration/Arbitration/Cheveyo vs Rosslessness: Difference between revisions
Misanthropy (talk | contribs) |
BobBoberton (talk | contribs) |
||
Line 23: | Line 23: | ||
[[User:Billy Forks|Billy Forks]] 09:04, 25 January 2010 (UTC) | [[User:Billy Forks|Billy Forks]] 09:04, 25 January 2010 (UTC) | ||
:Yeah, that definitely seems more than suspect. Also, does anyone else consider Ross' offers of compromise to be too lenient? He's done nothing wrong, I see no reason to put up so much in compromise. Ross, odds are you'll emerge entirely unscathed, so there's not really any need to capitulate. {{User:Misanthropy/Sig}} 11:07, 25 January 2010 (UTC) | :Yeah, that definitely seems more than suspect. Also, does anyone else consider Ross' offers of compromise to be too lenient? He's done nothing wrong, I see no reason to put up so much in compromise. Ross, odds are you'll emerge entirely unscathed, so there's not really any need to capitulate. {{User:Misanthropy/Sig}} 11:07, 25 January 2010 (UTC) | ||
::I second that. No reprieve for the zerging. --'''[[User:BobBoberton|<span style="color: #FF4500">Bob Boberton</span>]] <sup>[[The_Fortress|<span style="color: #6B8E23">TF</span>]] / [[The_Fortress/Dark_Watch|<span style="color: #778899 ">DW</span>]]</sup>''' [[Image:Littlemudkipsig.gif]] 15:04, 25 January 2010 (UTC) |
Revision as of 15:04, 25 January 2010
Zerg
I'm willing to bet Ross is right... -Poodle of DoomM! T 03:12, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
From Talk:Arbies
This will be an interesting case. Both sides seem to accuse the other of zerging--which is certainly an issue that will make it very difficult to find an un-biased arbitor for. --Maverick Talk - OBR 404 09:56, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
- You don't need to find an unbiased arbiter. Just one that they both agree to. Big difference. ;) —Aichon— 14:43, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
- Personally, I think if you want an unbiased arbitrator, you need to pick a volunteer at random, who has no invested interest in the wiki,... by that I mean, someone who's not directly involved, or doesn't seek to benifit from the politics revolving around the case, or wiki.... -Poodle of DoomM! T 01:16, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
Chev's initial argument
He's boned. --
07:35, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
- Yap. While I get some popcorn, did Ross ever even use any profanity or a hostile tone? Sure, confirmed zergs/cheats deserve it, but with Cheveyo being less-than-totally-confirmed I like how Ross stayed classy. At least, I can't see or remember anything unclassy. Other people, yeah, but that's not part of this case. Heh. --Bob Boberton TF / DW 08:12, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
- Bob pretty much said it. -- Adward 15:26, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
He's lying in his initial argument, I believe. When he says the zerg-accusation graffiti is nothing to do with him, that's a lie. I posted some circumstantial evidence on Hmm:talk:
Billy Forks said: |
The evidence that you are responsible for the graffiti slandering Ross is circumstantial, but strong:
|
Cheveyo ignored this, preferring ad hominem attacks. There is now evidence that he's still in the area, still putting up the same graffiti. Yesterday I resprayed our hospital with one of our recruiting tags, and today it's gone again: http://iamscott.net/1264408603864.html. The accusation is even worded the same as in his broadcast from Woodroffe Mall: http://img44.imageshack.us/i/whatisthisbr.jpg/ . Cheveyo is still in the area: http://iamscott.net/1264408944836.html Billy Forks 09:04, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
- Yeah, that definitely seems more than suspect. Also, does anyone else consider Ross' offers of compromise to be too lenient? He's done nothing wrong, I see no reason to put up so much in compromise. Ross, odds are you'll emerge entirely unscathed, so there's not really any need to capitulate. 11:07, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
- I second that. No reprieve for the zerging. --Bob Boberton TF / DW 15:04, 25 January 2010 (UTC)