UDWiki:Administration/Arbitration

Shortcut:
A/A

While the wiki community attempts to work on the basis of encouragement and cooperation, there are occasions where wiki users find themselves unable to reach accord. In the event of this happening, the Arbitration Team may be called upon to intervene, and attempt to find a reasonable compromise that, while perhaps not satisfying both parties, may at least assist in defusing the situation, thanks to the unbiased third party.

Guidelines for Arbitration Requests

In assisting in Arbitration, we generally suggest that both parties agree to the Arbitration. This is not, by any means, a requirement, but we do require that both parties be represented in proceedings.

Any Arbitration request should provide at least the following:

• The aggrieved parties. Either person vs person, or [list of people] vs [list of people].
• The reason for the arbitration. This should very specifically be without reference to people, as that information has already been provided. It should be a short paragraph indicating the causes of the aggrievement, and why both parties feel it requires arbitration
• Any pages affected by the aggrievement. This should be a simple list of links.

Once the Arbitration commences, the Arbitrator will request statements from all parties involved. Any evidence to back up one's statement should be provided in link form. Each party will then have an opportunity to rebut their opponent's statement. After these two steps, the Arbitrator will then consider the case, and reach a conclusion, and determine the outcome that is required. It's the duty of the Arbitrator to move a case he accepted to a subpage of UDWiki:Administration/Arbitration, and to update the status of the arbitration case in the Arbitration Cases in Progress section.

As a note, by requesting an Arbitration, all parties are thus obliged to accept the outcome of the Arbitration. Not doing will be considered Vandalism, and such vandalism attempts will be treated as if the vandal has already received two warnings.

After the Arbitration is over, it will then be moved to an archive page. As publicly accessible pages, they may be used to establish precedent in further, applicable cases.

Current Arbitrators

For guidelines on how to arbitrate, see Arbitration Guidelines.

The following users have placed their hand up as users who are willing to be contacted to act as an Arbitrator. The role of Arbitrator is not restricted to the Administration Team; any user can be contacted as an Arbitrator and use this page for the arbitration, so long as both parties agree to the Arbitrator. Users who wish to place their hand up as an Arbitrator should place their name below on the list, using *{{usr|YourUserPage}}

Also note that not all listed Arbitrators are active on the Wiki.

Available Arbitrators in Alphabetical Order
AnimeSucks Axe Hack Blood Panther boxy Cheeseman Conndraka Cyberbob240 Drawde Gus Thomas	Galaxy125 hagnat Haliman111 Honestmistake Iscariot J3D Karek Kikashie Labine50 Linkthewindow	MichaelRead Nubis Sergeant William Holt SirArgo Sonny Corleone Suicidal Angel The General Toejam Z. slay3r

Arbitration Cases Currently Under Consideration

Administration Notice

Use this header to create new arbitration cases. Once all sides have chosen an arbiter, move the case to a sub-page of UDWiki:Administration/Arbitration and update its status in the Arbitration Cases in Progress section.

St. Iscariot, Wiki Martyr and Mall Tour 2009 versus User:Sgt_Raiden

Given the incompetence of the sysop team in ruling a vandalism case correctly, St. Iscariot, Wiki Martyr, and The Mall Tour 2009 seek to prevent the user known as Sgt Raiden from making any further edits on this wiki concerning the Mall Tour 2009. I will accept User:Johnny Bass, User:Dr Cory Bjornson and User:Fifth Element as arbitrators. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 05:10, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Call me stupid, but aren't Johnny and Fifth Element both working with the Mall Tour, and since the Mall Tour is named in this case... Linkthewindow  Talk  05:28, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

OK, you're stupid. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 05:31, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I am not part of this case. Wiki Martyr 06:46, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

And there is no user named St. Iscariot. If there was we would permaban him as a sock puppet account made to mock. ... like you were.--– Nubis ^NWO 17:10, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Fixed in accordance with the users wishes. Iscariot, if you wish to take me to A/VB, feel free. I am not an alt and I am eager for you to make an arse of yourself. Liberty 09:22, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Fiexed correctly, a user may be known as whatever they wish, see User:Krazy Monkey, just because someone edits in bad faith does not limit their usage of a given moniker. You'll notice that I'm the only one that it links to as well. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 16:28, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

You can not call yourself Saint Iscariot any more than Sgt. Raiden could make a case against "Iscariot the Asshole that needs to shut the Fuck Up and give it a Rest". So, shut the fuck up and give it a rest.--– Nubis ^NWO 17:10, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Calling himself what he wants is very different from calling someone else an asshole. Cheese (aka User:Krazy Monkey) has been involved in a couple of cases as only “Cheese”, which is much further from his real username than St. Iscariot is from Iscariot's. Not to mention that there already exists a case involving a St. Iscariot. So, why don't you give it a rest. Letting him call himself St. Iscariot isn't going to kill you. Or anyone else, for that matter. --Midianian^|T|DS|C:RCS| 17:40, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

You might want to try making that point again when Iscariot is commonly referred to as whatever he is claiming as his titles. St. Iscariot makes sense, St. Iscariot Wiki Martyr Protector of the Consensus does not and only serves as some ridiculous claim to make himself, illigitimately seem more authoritative. Like when he claims he runs and is the voice of MallTour, he isn't.--Judge Karke, self-proclaimed Decider of Everything and Ruler of All 01:41, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Also, in the Archives, Cheese's first case does refer to him as Cheese AKA Krazy Monkey and Micheal Read is referred to as SexyLegsRead. --– Nubis ^NWO 17:19, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Precedent -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 17:35, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I r not newb. =/ Lrn to indent. -- Cheese 17:38, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

LOL, quite a case to bring against a wiki newbie... seeking to forbid them from commenting on one of the major current events in the game, and giving them a list of arbitrators to pick from, all of whom are Mall Tourists. Noice -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 10:12 15 January 2009 (BST)

You could have handed out a warning and reverted the contentious edit, and all of this would have been avoided, the warning itself would have been struck before the end of the Mall Tour 2009 given his rate of contributions. However, you didn't, and stated clearly that it was a matter for arbitration. You're always going on about how I don't follow correct procedure, well I did what you told me to do.... -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 16:28, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

So much for the user who claims its the sysops fault that users are being driven away from the wiki. --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{talk mod} 10:26, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I reject you as a potential arbitrator. According to your own badly crafted guidelines, please refrain from posting on the main page of this case again. Take it to the talk page, I'm sure someone will read what you have to say. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 16:28, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I offer to arbitrate. --Pestolence^(talk) 21:49, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

How about before this turns into a totally irrelevant and bitter flame war, someone gets Sgt. Raiden to actually respond and accept or reject this case?--SirArgo ^Talk 21:52, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

He's been notified on his talk page already. (And I don't believe you can reject a case.) --Pestolence^(talk) 21:57, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't think thats actually ever been tried, however, i think that rejecting (or rather refusing to take part) would be a valid response given that arbitration is by definition a process involving 2 parties agreeing to accept the input of a nuetral 3rd! In any event he can just refuse all arbitration until the case collapses... It's a shit way to do it; and should not really be allowed; but it is a tried and tested way to fuck with the system!--Honestmistake 00:05, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

And while I understand all of that, what I was getting at is why don't we give him a decent chance to respond before this page turns into an all out war.--SirArgo ^Talk 01:07, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

What are the edits which have brought this case forth? All I can see is someone posting POV stuff. While I'm sure that Sgt Raiden needs a lesson on keeping his posts in an netural POV on suburb pages and what not, I don't see any reason in his edits for an arbitration case, let alone you trying to resolve the issue by you talking to him. As of such, unless you give me a really good reason not to archive this case, this case will be removed within the next few days. - Jedaz - 00:37/16/01/2009

Link(s) are in this vandalism case. It appears from that case that Raiden has been posting false information about the Mall Tour, and impersonating others while doing so. --Pestolence^(talk) 00:49, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I saw the vandalism case. However it looks like a newbie mistake. As for the "false information", in cases like these most people would change the edit in question and leave a comment on the users talk page about it. Anyway, by the looks of things he made the claims about Mall Tour attacking when you guys were only 1 suburb away, so it's understandable that he would have thought that you guys were attacking. If you are refering to something else then please point it out, but this is a very common newbie mistake. - Jedaz - 01:03/16/01/2009

The following is directed at Jedaz. Quoting from the Arbitration Guidelines "When two or more users don't agree on how a page should be edited, a case in arbitration should be created, so an outside and neutral person can help solve the conflict". The Mall Tour 2009 disagrees with the outright lies he is posting about our group, see this edit. I have access to all levels of the public and private Mall Tour boards and coded the entire Mall Tour 2009 pages. I announce the targets and decide where the Tour will progress to. He is lying about the Tour, and by the definition of the Arbitration Guidelines the two parties in this arbitration disagree with his edits; he believes he can make them, we dispute them. Therefore arbitration. Arbitration was also recommended by a current sysop on this wiki as a way to resolve the obvious differences. I reject any offer to arbitrate you may make , and so, following Arbitration Guidelines I invite you to confine your responses to the talk page. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 00:58, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Considering you haven't even spoken to the other user, bar telling him to come here, I think you've misinterpreted Boxy's statement. Usually, a dispute as trivial as this can be solved by simply leaving a polite request on the user's talk page, especially in the case where the user is relatively new to the wiki. If they then continue to edit in the manner that aggrieves you, then you bring it here. Arbitration should be a last resort in an edit dispute where normal dialogue has failed, not the first. -- Cheese 01:07, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

And I quote Boxy "As to him being annoying, that's a matter for arbies -- boxy talk • teh rulz 04:46 15 January 2009 (BST)". We find him annoying, hence arbies at Boxy's suggestion. That sentence is not open to interpretation. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 01:21, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

So your reason for arbitration is 1 edit? 1 edit which you did not even talk to the user about. Talk to him first and then you may have a case if you can't resolve the dispute, but until then you have nothing. Arbitration isn't designed to be the first place you take your issues, the other persons talk page is. - Jedaz - 01:12/16/01/2009

Now I know you aren't paying attention, you say one edit and at the same time that you've read the vandalism case, there are two distinct edits, even though the first one was removed he continued his behaviour. I'm not required to talk with a user first, unless you want to bring me a policy or statute that says otherwise. We at the Mall Tour have enough to do without reverting every single edit made by idiots. This will remove an idiot. This is what arbitration is for. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 01:21, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Oh really? I was sure it was for the settling of edit disputes. =O Wait...it is. This will remove an idiot. This is what arbitration is for. Is this an admittance that the case was created in bad faith, purely to drive a user from the wiki? -- Cheese 01:30, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Nice try Cheese, but don't try and put words into my mouth, this is about an edit conflict, what he may and may not post about my event. He believes he is allowed to post lies, we disagree. My personal opinion of the user does not change that. Also, if I'd wanted him gone from the game, this case wouldn't be here and he'd be on his way to leaving. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 01:48, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Ah yes, I forgot you were a letter of the rules type person. If you read the first paragraph of this page you will see that it says that "there are occasions where wiki users find themselves unable to reach accord", you have made no attempt to reach a solution. The basis of arbitration is to find a fair resolution for both parties who are unable to come to one on their own. So while it may not be written in stone, you are going against the spirit of what arbitration is all about by not trying to resolve your issue reasonably beforehand. Precedence has shown cases to be thrown out if the person who brought fourth the case did not try to resolve it prior to arbitration. - Jedaz - 01:32/16/01/2009

You can try and rules lawyer me if you like, you'll lose. I will dispute that on grounds that page summaries are vague to conserve space, however the guidelines are clear that this case is valid and that their conciseness overrules the summary. Also recent precedent shows that your notion of cases being dismissed is fallacious. Enjoy. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 01:48, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually if you knew me you'ld realize that I'm almost the complete opposite of a rules lawyer. But if you read the title it says "Guidelines for Arbitration Requests", so there is nothing saying that you have to get to the next phase of arbitration. Oh, and by the way, dismissal of cases is based on an arbitrators decision (of course with adequate time for discussion about it is my philosophy), so unless Sgt Raiden wants this to continue, or other members of the community think this case has merit, I will remove this. - Jedaz - 02:00/16/01/2009

You're not hurting me by doing that, you're hurting him. Go for it, I'll seek satisfaction in other ways and you've just caused another newbie to leave the game. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 02:02, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Arbitration Cases in Progress

Umbrella Biohazard Containment Service vs Umbrella Corporation

Involved Users	Umbrella Biohazard Containment Service, Umbrella Corporation
Arbitrator	Cheese
Created	23:33, 9 January 2009 (UTC) by Haliman - Talk
Status	Undefined
Summary	An attempt to mediate the hostilies between UBCS and Umbrella as well as prepare a POV neutral war report page

Kristi of the Dead vs. Recruitment

Involved Users	Kristi of the Dead, Recruitment
Arbitrator	undefined
Created	01:54, 19 November 2008 (UTC) by Kristi of the Dead
Status	Undefined
Summary	n/a

St. Iscariot vs. Boxy

Involved Users	Iscariot, Boxy
Arbitrator	WanYao
Created	04:55, 21 December 2008 (UTC) by WanYao
Status	Concluded.
Summary	n/a

Archives

• List of Arbitration Cases