UDWiki:Administration/Arbitration/Iscariot vs Krazy Monkey

Administration Services — Protection. This page has been protected against editing. See the archive of recent actions or the Protections log.

St. Iscariot vs. Cheese

This is a case over the ruling in the Jorm/Zeug case. Cheese has exceeded his remit as arbitrator in this case by ordering the circumvention of established wiki procedure.

I wish to have sections of his ruling stricken and declared unenforceable.

I will accept any arbitrator who has shown an understanding for following established wiki policy and procedure in their edit history. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 10:15, 30 September 2008 (BST)

I can has arby? --HAHAHA DISREGARD THAT, I SUCK COCKS 23:38, 30 September 2008 (BST)

I accept Bob. He has long shown that he follows wiki policy and procedure to the letter. -- Cheese 23:39, 30 September 2008 (BST)

My indiscretions are by choice, not by lack of knowledge. You'll also note that I was more than courteous and impartial in my previous case. I take being an arbitrator seriously. --HAHAHA DISREGARD THAT, I SUCK COCKS 00:31, 1 October 2008 (BST)

Seriously though, I think this case is one of the most moronic that has ever been brought. Iscariot basically wants my ruling stricken so that a deleted page can be restored just to be deleted again next week. This is stupid and a waste of time on everyone's part. I refuse to play any part in this. -- Cheese 00:16, 1 October 2008 (BST)

Then the arby ruling will happen without any input from you whatsoever. And if he finds an arbitrator sympathetic to his side, he'll get what he wants, thus just wasting more time when the page gets re-deleted. If he's serious, go along, or find representation. You should know all of this. Save others time by sacrificing a little to go with the case.-- dǝǝɥs oʇ ɯɐds: sʎɐʍ1ɐ! 00:28, 1 October 2008 (BST)

Fine. I still think this is moronic. But SA has a point. I will represent myself. Arbitrators who want in, please leave a note. -- Cheese 00:31, 1 October 2008 (BST)

Wait a minute. You can not arbitrate against someone that doesn't choose to participate in the arbitration. Then the arby ruling will happen without any input from you whatsoever. This is complete bullshit. If this was the case then I could go back and find either old pages that the users have "abandoned" or for that matter users that aren't as active these days and set up cases against them, pick my buddy to arby, and get whatever I wanted done. Arbies has to have BOTH parties involved and if Cheese refuses to participate then he can not be forced to. Arbies is an option not required for conflict resolution. --– Nubis ^NWO 13:55, 1 October 2008 (BST)

Shhh, don't tell the peoplez da truth!-- dǝǝɥs oʇ ɯɐds: sʎɐʍ1ɐ! 00:39, 2 October 2008 (BST)

Actually the rules say an Arbies case can be made without participation of the other side.... however there s no point doing so as without their agreement to enter the process there s no way to make them accept the outcome! --Honestmistake 02:30, 2 October 2008 (BST)

And that loophole right there is the crux of what is fucking wrong with this wiki. That needs to be closed up. --– Nubis ^NWO 03:09, 2 October 2008 (BST)

You're wrong, sorry. --HAHAHA DISREGARD THAT, I SUCK COCKS 14:12, 1 October 2008 (BST)

It's not really a loophole though is it? You can't force someone to accept arbitration, it goes totally counter to the meaning of the word! Perhaps a seperate procedure for such cases might work but that would really be a case of asking for judgement rather than a negotiated settlement and there is no way that the person bringing such a case should have any control over who rules on it... Hell such a thing should probably be open to public vote like deletions is!--Honestmistake 14:24, 3 October 2008 (BST)

Actually it's probably a good chance to clarify established wiki procedure and underline where Arbitration fits on this wiki. If deletions can be forced through by 'popular' vote (ie meatpuppets) without recourse to arbitration then it's anarchy, a good example is wan's direct recourse to deletion twice now with both the original UZM and its redirect. As it is the deletions vote is an easy bad faith way of not bothering with arbitration. As for your ruling being 'unenforceable' ... well it came to the same conclusion as wan's delete request, Iscariot's vote and upheld jorm's request for deletion! It doesn't override or circumvent but rather concurs. It would be enforceable after the vote cos even if the Keep's won the day I would have requested speedy deletion as per your ruling. Finally, as original author I changed my vote to speedy delete and isn't that justification in itself for speedy deletion (criteria #7 Author Edit Only)? Isn't there a procedure to deal with litigious members on this wiki? They're generally a huge waste of time otherwise. --Zeug 07:42, 1 October 2008 (BST)

Quit your whining, and quit trying to play the victim. No one buys it. You started this problem, and you escalated it. Time and time again, repeatedly. By refusing to refusing to allow groups them to edit themselves from a public, community page they wanted nothing to do with. You are the one who caused the friction and drama: this is fallout from a situation you started, fomented and perpetuated. You know it. I know it. Everyone else knows it.

But anyway... We apologise for this interruption, and return you now to your regularly scheduled programming: Zeug's usual arguments ad hominen, facile dissemblings and assorted "other general whinging". --WanYao 08:36, 1 October 2008 (BST)

Shhhh ... it's OK wan. I'm sure everybody understands your pain and we're all here for you buddy. And don't worry, even with 4 v/b's, 2 deletions and an arbi case called against me over the last few days I can assure you I feel in no way victimized. Quite the opposite, I love the wiki process and I love UD and its social network. And with this case maybe we can put a brake on meatpuppet attacks in the deletions vote.--Zeug 12:40, 1 October 2008 (BST)

I'll arbitrate, but you should know that arbitration has a long history of ordering deletions, and frankly, if a decent, impartial arbitrator orders it (as seems to have happened in this case), it is a better system than internet democracy because the decision is made by someone who has all the relevant facts, as presented by the parties involved -- boxy ^{talk • i} 10:23 1 October 2008 (BST)

I do not accept Bob, for obvious reasons, and will not accept Boxy due to his sysop status. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 11:49, 3 October 2008 (BST)

why must you hurt my feelings when i can obviously be imapartial when I arbitrate --HAHAHA DISREGARD THAT, I SUCK COCKS 16:07, 3 October 2008 (BST)

I'm somewhat new to Arbies, having only added myself recently, but I'd be willing.--Drawde ^{Talk To Me! DORIS Яed Яum Defend Ridleybonk! I know Nothing!} 20:06, 12 October 2008 (BST)

I also offer to arby. --Haliman - Talk 16:28, 13 October 2008 (BST)

Pick me! I want to be the Arbitatortot. I love going to Arby's. --Sonny Corleone ^{DORIS MSD pr0n} 18:00, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

This seems to have died off a while ago, so I'll archive it soon if no one has anything else to add. --ZsL 17:28, 19 November 2008 (UTC)