UDWiki talk:Administration/Arbitration/NWO vs Cobra, Aichon and RadicalWhig

Headers (no, not those Headers, the other ones)

That page has just started, and already it has become a mess to navigate and edit. Would anyone mind if the various statements were turned into proper headers? (e.g., ===Happy 24 7's First Statement:===) -- Spiderzed█ 16:03, 13 September 2013 (BST)

DT needs to give it the okay, but I'm definitely in support. I nearly did it myself yesterday. —Aichon— 16:18, 13 September 2013 (BST)

what a great way to cap off the summer!

	Because Harrison
	That's why.

--User:Sexualharrison14:57, 15 September 2013

My favorite part was when I vaporized 75% of his arguments before the trial even started.--RadicalWhig 18:52, 27 September 2013 (BST)

The Ruling

I don't mind restraints (it was what I was expecting), but they really need to receive a time limit. An arbitration ruling that effectively restrains the involved parties until the end of time isn't really valid. It are typically 1-3 months that such restraining rulings are held up, but YMMV. -- Spiderzed█ 23:54, 15 September 2013 (BST)

I wanted something more interesting. Half way I stopped caring because of how the case was going. DT just ended up saying, I can't do shit about this. It's too bad we can't come to some kind of conclusion, Spider. Radical is still an attention whore. Still disappoint. At the same time, I'm sure Cobra(given its past drama - in the past lawl) or any other PKer group wouldn't want a page like BONWO and now it's clear that such pages can be made, thanks to Radical. NEVAR FORGET!!! -.- 00:05, 16 September 2013 (BST)

The reason 'such pages' can be made is because they're not making up ridiculous shit about you to make you look bad. Everything on that page, aside from some commentary, was said by you. Had it all been outright slander, the precedent is that it should be moved to userspace. You brought this to arbitration, apparently without researching a damn thing, judging by your arguments, and this is the appropriate ruling. Had you done your research and developed a convincing argument beyond "this hurts my feelings", you would have stood a very good chance of swaying my decision. --DT^PK 02:25, 16 September 2013 (BST)

The weird and wonderful moment when somebody stumbles upon the right decision by entirely ridiculous logic.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 02:14, 16 September 2013 (BST)

Go back to being Shortround. --DT^PK 02:26, 16 September 2013 (BST)

amen--User:Sexualharrison10:55, 16 September 2013

The Krinks page has been unprotected (forgot about it until now; sorry about that), so the ruling can now be carried out. —Aichon— 19:01, 18 September 2013 (BST)

I had more confidence in you DT. If you think that page isn't outright slander than you're obviously more oblivious than I had expected. Lets take into consideration the original purpose as to why that page was made before concluding that it should be a parody, regardless of quotations. Can users copy signed responses and identify the information as accurate? Yeah. Can users copy signed responses and then add "commentary" to insult users? Yes. Does that make the insult accurate? No. That would be like me choosing any number of your signed posts and then pasting them in quotations on a page to add biased, insulting "commentary" then justifying its truth with even more biased, insulting "commentary". I mean seriously. All I hear radical harp about is "research" what research? Flawed policies, past flawed arbitrations? The only research anyone should be doing is the kind that involves reading an actual book, preferably on debate, philosophy(for all the pre law majors out there) and probably ethics. When I said third party, I ment from the perspective of anyone who hasn't been on the wiki yet; not the perspective of your biased wiki buddies. I had more trust in you than that DT. No skin off my back for learning that you would use your minuscule involvement with a past group of mine in order to impress your buddy buds. The beauracracy here is seriously boring. Anyway, lets look at the end result here, radical got out scatt free. Krinks is left with no improvement because you can't even fathom a consideration for a 3rd party perspective to be made on the page. I presented a variation for a third party perspective. I gave the information I had at hand to EVERYONE. Which would respectively provide some kind of cooperation. Regardless of the date of the trap, it was considered a trap on that date. So please enlighten me on any retorts to that. I just caught kristy cotton in krinks and gave her a pistol to the face. Does that mean I should edit the krinks page, posting a screenshot, parading that she was caught in the trap that was revealed to the public, without contacting her first to make a collaborative edit? The edit couldn't be made without the "communities" approval, kristy's approval and probably the untampered screenshot. If those are all green, then it would probably be made official. Spider just made the edit armed with screenshots. Did anyone contest paynes edit on krinks? What happened? Oh, co bra has gotta come in and defaced NWO on the krinks page, then justify the bias as fact because,"they won." Ok well, they can't technically win in UD. They can't even post screenshots of PKs on the page without any probable cause. Their probable cause was that "hey, they say they're relating to and dusting krinks! Time to kill deem and then publicize their dusting and relation as a failure." Ok, what cobra? Sexual wasn't exactly being civil to me, so how were you going to bring the krinks edits up? We can speculate, but sexual insisted on an edit war to protect his "accomplishments". Sorry I don't do my research on the drama of the wiki, but shouldn't cobra be mature enough to know what they did was wrong? And by cobra I mean sexual and spider the "senior" users, compared to anyone in NWO. Is provoking new users really more important than making the wiki fun? How is it that radical can make a page like he did and not harm my group and in turn, the wiki. How can more experienced wiki users in positions like sysops and bureaucrats not be held accountable by their peers for acting just as childish and insignificant? Instead, everyone jumps in like it doesn't matter. It's seriously retarded. When that's fixed, you can talk to me about logic of the urban dead wiki. H4ppy 24 7 14:13, 27 September 2013 (BST)

tl;dr. If you have lasting concerns, take them to Misconbitration.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 16:15, 27 September 2013 (BST)

"Sorry I don't do my research on the drama of the wiki" essentially summarizes why you didn't get what you wanted out of the case. You might wish and pray that the process worked as you described (i.e. the only research you need is philosophy and ethics), but that doesn't make it so. The fact is, DT is expected to honor past precedents when he can, and the other parties were the only ones citing any at all, so unless he went and found some precedents on his own, he'd have no choice but to throw the book at you, which is what a lot of people were pushing for.

So, do you know what he did? No, of course you don't, otherwise you'd realize that you're spitting in the face of someone who just did you a HUGE favor.

A few days after you withdrew your complaints against me, he and I spent about an hour together (and I believe he spent several hours of additional time on his own after that) looking through old arbitration cases, deletion votes, parody pages, wiki groups, and other such things for precedents. He isn't required to do anything of that sort (neither was I, for that matter), but he was about to be forced to hand down a completely one-sided ruling against you, which didn't seem to sit too well with him. We found a few precedents that worked in your favor, and if you re-read his closing statements, they read off like a list of justifications for why he gave you as much as he did, since most arbitrators would have absolutely nailed you to the wall after you gave them so little to work with.

And you think that DT wanted to impress his buddies? You've got it all wrong. He's been taking flak in private IRC channels and even a little over at my talk page for not throwing the book at you guys after you failed to give him anything he could work with. Don't blame DT for your own failure to do your due diligence. As DT said in his ruling, you forced his hand, particularly on the BNWO issue, by not providing any evidence on which he could act. This is on you. —Aichon— 17:22, 27 September 2013 (BST)

Just to note: Deletion votes are in no way precedents of any form. They may be indicative of community opinion, but unless they're specifically voted in on scheduling deletions, they're just single case opinions of the community and in no way bear on future decisions; especially not in arbitration.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 17:42, 27 September 2013 (BST)

The point was that we were exploring every option. And we were exploring Deletion votes more for any commentary they may have had on existing precedent, since they'll oftentimes mention relevant ones, which is exactly what we found in this case. —Aichon— 17:56, 27 September 2013 (BST)

Yeah, totally get where you guys were coming from, but I wanted to make it clear for posterity that they aren't binding precedents, because the word "precedent" has been used in relation to them a couple of times now. :P --Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 01:21, 28 September 2013 (BST)

Okay, to sum up your moaning:

"I didn't do any work arguing my case, and I didn't get what I wanted! YOU GUYS ARE RETARDS."

Okay. I, RadicalWhig, didn't do a very good job arguing, as DT will attest. But you didn't do more than spend 10 minutes ranting and providing a single fucking link, whereas I and SZ had to break our asses over conducting a defense. We tried, you didn't. Period. What else could DT do, man? Your defense amounts to "I'm basically right" and "NO U R WRONG." Law is based on evidence and past events (aka Precedent), you dumb flaming sack of hagfish shit. You agreed to the bureaucracy when you went to Arby's, an integral part of said bureaucracy. You have no right to complain about shit that you purposefully chose to rely on when it doesn't work out your way. If you think the bureaucracy and precedent is flawed, then why did you choose to use it in the first place? Did you really have no fucking clue? In addition, there is no degree in law required, just some critical thinking and ability to back up your fucking claims, a field in which you seriously were outstripped by us. By your own choice no less. You could have saved that sinking ship, too, had you at least tried, as DT said. But no, your laziness cost you, end of story.

"But but but it's still mean when quotes are used". I'm not saying BNWO is 100% factual. I'm not saying it's not insulting, or that it doesn't harm your group. And to be honest, no one gives a flying fuck if it is or is not. The question here was "does it have enough in common with other pages that had to be deleted", and well, DT figured that one out. And guess what, you could do the same quotes thing too. I have no problem with you starting a quotes page me, on your userspace or some shit. I won't cry all the way to fucking Arby's or A/D. Bring it.

"Blah blah blah DT." You picked DT, man. You knew the risks. Deal. With. It. DT fucking bent his back over to poke holes in my argument, and to at least bring up some precedent in your favor, and I complained to him in IRC over it. He did a damn fine job, I think, because he gave me a harder time than I wanted him to, which is the sign of a fair judge, and I salute him for the proper conduct. Shit, I would have accepted the verdict if he ruled against me too- not happily, but I would have, because he worked damn harder than he had to on this thing. But my point is, you fucking knew what you were getting into when you picked him to deliver a binding statement, or at least you SHOULD HAVE. You fucking idiot.

"Krinks blah blah blah". Jesus fuck, dude. This is how edit wars ALWAYS end. No matter who is in the right or wrong or whatever. Cobra got the exact same treatment you did, and you both got to shut up and get down to things that actually matter. Well, Cobra did, anyways, you guys never mattered. But the point is, if you had any idea what usually happens in Arby's, you would have seen this coming a MILE AWAY.

Alright, I'm done. My spiel is over. Kiddie hour is over, Cybertart. You failed to gather any information and stumbled into Arby's clueless and that cost you so hard it's actually kind of not funny anymore. Most of the wiki looks down on if not outright hates you now, and in-game, your weakened, persecuted playpen is as relevant to Malton as Barney the Dinosaur is. Your continued insistence that you are always, ALWAYS right, no matter how little effort, tact or thought you demonstrate, is costing you and you don't have the stones to even privately recognize this. Me, I am a very flawed human being (you can use this for your quotes, go ahead), and I know that more than anyone else, but every day I give my thanks to God, or whoever is out there, that I am not you.

I'm tired of spanking you, so barring further provocation, this is the last thing I'll say to you. Have a great day.

-- ^{FoD PK Praise Rando!}18:01, 27 September 2013 (BST)

Radical, you're a dumbshit, get over it. Just do what you do and copy & paste Lol. I really just don't care enough to do anything for this wiki anymore because, well... I'm lazy and you guys are stupid. I feel dumb just being here talking to everyone and listening to them. There's a few exceptions to this of course. The only reason Aichon called me a child in the first place was because I wasn't acting like a sociopath d: Just because some of us are human doesn't make them children throwing fits - control freaks. You guys are really original in your roleplaying psychopaths, but you're not support to put your head in your ass and then begin doing the only thing that you think you're good at, arguing. Radical, I thought I made it clear before that I make mistakes and well, I know it. But I don't argue to be right, especially against halfwits. H4ppy 24 7 20:09, 27 September 2013 (BST)

And a pity ruling? Kiss my ass. You guys are way to damn arrogant to talk to anymore.H4ppy 24 7 20:15, 27 September 2013 (BST)

Thusly did UDwiki chew up and shit out a cyberturd. And the world is better for it. -- ^{FoD PK Praise Rando!} 20:23, 27 September 2013 (BST)

Also, "I DON'T CARE AT ALL ABOUT HOW THIS STUPID CASE ENDS AND I WILL WRITE A WALL OF TEXT ABOUT IT. THEN I AM LEAVING THE WIKI! FOREVER! GOODBYE!- CYBERTART" for like the third time. Let the door hit you on the ass on the way out. -- ^{FoD PK Praise Rando!} 20:44, 27 September 2013 (BST)

there is no need for any of this name calling. i am talking to all of you. when you are in the courtroom of the wiki, you are civil, although i am not sure why this is still going on. the case has conclude, and it is time for this to finally end. happy, please stop thinking. i said to pain train once, and then i will now say it to you. you may not want to hear or see these things, and it may not be what you want in your vision, but as soon as you realize how to accept it, you will be a much happier person. ayu learned this lesson, and so did i. it is now your turn to own up to what has happened and accept the decision dt has made. you will be happier, and that is what i want. for now, we should clear out of the court room. -- 20:38, 27 September 2013 (BST)

That's actually not why I called you a child either time. The first time I called you a "petulant child" was in-character, and it was because you had acted immaturely when people politely declined your invitations to join NWO (you became uncivil towards me after that point, which continues to baffle me, since you and I had previously talked about the fact that my in-character comments should not be taken as my own). The second time I did it was on my talk page and out-of-character, and it was aimed at both you and Harrison, since you were each edit warring with the other, which is no different than two kids yanking on a toy to have it all to themselves, instead of setting it down and agreeing to share. You, in contrast with Harrison, had the decency to try and establish a dialog, for which I do give you credit, but when discussions broke down you still resorted to the same tactics he did, so I stand by my referring to your actions as childish.

Had you simply been civil towards Ross and the others when they declined your group's invitation, and had you not shoehorned yourself into that discussion on KN's page that had nothing to do with NWO, I'd have never referred to you as a "petulant child" in-character. And had you kept at trying to establish a discussion about Krinks, rather than edit warring, I never would have called those actions of yours childish either. In fact, I was impressed that you were trying to take the right path through that mess, since the others were clearly provoking you. I just wish you had kept at it. —Aichon— 22:33, 27 September 2013 (BST)

that's it? The wiki beat me up now? You mean a website? Or the community? Are you really half chimp radical? Can you make anything that doesn't reflect the personal opinions of the PKer community? You're really a chimp? What's 2+2=¿ did Aichon train you? Do you have higher brain functions that don't involve wiki-retardation? If you had to go to the bathroom, where would you shit first? The floor or your pants? H4ppy 24 7 20:45, 27 September 2013 (BST)

Yawn. Try harder. -- ^{FoD PK Praise Rando!}20:46, 27 September 2013 (BST)

I'm sorry, I can't compete in the try-hard brackets of this wiki. I don't care, I really don't and i think it's funny. H4ppy 24 7 20:51, 27 September 2013 (BST)

Then get lost. Hopefully for reals this time. -- ^{FoD PK Praise Rando!} 22:33, 27 September 2013 (BST)

The best way to show you don't care is to stop talking, saying you don't care tends to imply the opposite. Also, Krinks is mine, I even spent an extra 4 AP tagging over the lackluster "nwo" that was thrown up following my untimely death. --_K 22:43, 27 September 2013 (BST)

ok finally, something. Aichon, this is the third time repeating this, I know I make mistakes and I accept that. You do realize that I to thus to arabies because sexual was hard to deal with without stooping. Culting us childish is stooping, yet you pretend as if you're exempt because I didn't want to get in it with you and sexual at the same damn time. Anyways, I think it's pretty clear that people here will back the more favourable users over those who aren't seen as favourable. I however cannot be swooned. Kristy, what's wrong with you? Whatre you doing except mimicking me? What's that accomplishing? H4ppy 24 7 23:16, 27 September 2013 (BST)

And I understand that people make mistakes, learn from them, and need to be able to move on. I'm willing to let you do so as well, but you seem to insist on taking offense with everything I say and any disagreement I have with something you've said or done. We all screw up sometimes, me included (...me especially). If someone is telling you you're screwing up, listen, give it some critical thought, and then respond appropriately, rather than brushing it off or knee-jerk responding in anger. If they're wrong, talk it out. If they're right, accept it, learn from it, and move on.

You've already acknowledged that your actions were not the right ones with that edit war, and it's fairly apparent that you both were acting childish by edit warring with each other, so I don't understand why you would think I was "stooping" if, when you asked me to get involved and pressed me to offer my perspective, I gave you my opinion by calling a spade a spade and then told you that the two of you needed to clean up your mess yourself.

Regarding whether or not I'm "exempt", I have no idea what I would even be exempt from, since you never specified what your complaint was with me. I may be guilty of what it is that you think I've done. Or I may not be. Who knows? Give me a list of grievances and let's talk it out, since otherwise I'll never know why you keep glaring at me without saying anything.

As for people backing "favourable users", well...yeah. I mean, not to put too fine a point on it, but you guys have basically done everything in your power to make yourselves unpopular around here, so much so that I was honestly beginning to wonder whether you were doing it intentionally. If you know that you made mistakes, then you must know that mistakes come with consequences, and not being liked is sometimes one of them. You guys can recover and rise above the people provoking you. I'd encourage you to do so, in fact. All of that said, I don't think that favoritism was at play in this particular case (and suggesting it was means that you're just ignoring the actual feedback that people are trying to give you for why things didn't go your way), though it may have been at play in the deletions voting a few weeks back, since that's a popular vote. —Aichon— 00:43, 28 September 2013 (BST)

I won't be reading that post, too long. H4ppy 24 7 01:43, 28 September 2013 (BST)

It's a good thing you skipped it, since otherwise you would have run straight into the olive branch I was holding out. Those things are dangerous! —Aichon— 01:54, 28 September 2013 (BST)

I skimmed it. But I gotta cool off and think . Too used to radicals posts where you can only assume what he's trying to communicate. Which is usually a load of horse shit with some ass kissing sprinkled on top.H4ppy 24 7 02:00, 28 September 2013 (BST)

and I already tagged over your mockery with new NWO tags. Seriously though, you actually want to play kristy? Or just insult? H4ppy 24 7 23:21, 27 September 2013 (BST)

If by play you mean, Krinks is mine, sure. If not, no not really. I'm not insulting; your new tags are actually much better. Although why no shooty? --_K 00:24, 28 September 2013 (BST)

Wtf is shooty? If you're claiming krinks, by all means you can try. But co bra has been... well, they've really only managed a big giant long list of kills. Urban dead has a lot of giant long kill lists. But anyway, goodluck getting anything original and NPOV on any building pages. Ugh, you guys suck. H4ppy 24 7 01:43, 28 September 2013 (BST)

"Hmph it didn't really matter anyways that we got killed lots of times in the gang war! I'm moving the goalposts so that I can still claim victory!"-- ^{FoD PK Praise Rando!} 03:42, 28 September 2013 (BST)

O, I don't care about being unpopular. I seriously don't care about it. I don't care if you like me or not. Does that mean I'm going to respect anyone's condescending advice? No, I tell them to go fuck themselves because they wanna condescend me with thing I already know or have to learn myself. It's like you guys think I care about getting something out of this. What would I already want? More importantly what do you think I want? H4ppy 24 7 01:50, 28 September 2013 (BST)

"I don't care I don't care I don't care I don't care I don't care *walls of text about not caring* I DONT CAAAAAAAAREEEEE!!!!!!" Someone who doesn't care would have left already. And I'd be careful there Cybertart, if you kick and scream enough you might wake up your mommy. I can hear you from her room. -- ^{FoD PK Praise Rando!}03:34, 28 September 2013 (BST)

At this point, do you really think anything you say or do is going to matter to me? Do yourself a favour and get over yourself. Is it just me or do you have aspergers? The cheap rendition of a gas mask with a baba really reflects your own feelings. The use of the gas mask was chosen for its anonymity and its designated purpose as an instrument of war. Technique is out the window along with practicle purpose other than projecting your flawed ideations. I can only assume it's an abstract self portrait of hypocrisy. I'll spell it out, learn to draw a circle first - fuckwit. Now that everyone has voiced that they don't care about the page, you can enjoy your shrine to my group. While you're making no progress on that page, I'll point out that I have you hanging on my every word. It's humorous that spider would have brought up cognitive dissonance in the arbitration because the theory can back evidence that the more people disagree on something or someone, the more people like what they disagree on. H4ppy 24 7 04:34, 28 September 2013 (BST)

I just realized I spent about half an hour on this talk page today. That is 29.5 minutes too many. I think I'll move on with my life now. I would advise the same of you, Cybertart, but I honestly hope this festers on your ego forever. Ta. -- ^{FoD PK Praise Rando!} 04:22, 28 September 2013 (BST)

Radical's Final Response

First, I'd like to sincerely apologize to NWO from the bottom of my heart for me being AWESOME.

But for dead serious, I'm done now. From now on, I'm done with bothering you on the wiki, CyberOpp, as long as you simply leave me and my beef with your homeboy Pantstain alone. No more cheap shots at me, even in passing, and I'm nobody to you. Or else I get my belt out again and the last three weeks repeats itself. But neither of us wants that do we?

Aaaaand you're probably not gonna accept. Ah well, I *was* looking forward to removing all my commentary and a few other bits from your and Ayu's BNWO quotes section *and* also never touching those sections again. No? Yes? Your call.

-- ^{FoD PK Praise Rando!}03:05, 16 September 2013 (BST)

Okay, but.. anything you do with BNWO doesn't have anything to do with any NWO members. You delete the page, it's because you choose to do so. You abandon the page, it's because of your own choice. You edited the page, it's also because you choose to do so. Just like how you claim I cannot change your opinion on Payne. So, it's your call. Not mine, not ours, no one else's. --Ayu Milady ^{NWO member} ┬─┬ノ( º _ ºノ) 16:37, 16 September 2013 (BST)

It's called a "peace offering", lady. And I believe this offer was directed at CyberOpp, not you. Unless you're representing him in his stead. -- ^{FoD PK Praise Rando!} 21:27, 16 September 2013 (BST)