UDWiki:Administration/Arbitration
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 (even if not listed below) 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.
|
Volunteer Arbitrators in Alphabetical Order | ||||
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. |
The Entire Wiki Community vs. User:Cornholioo
Periodically, this situation happens: Cornholioo has declared that a certain person don't post on his talk page. That person posts on this talk page nevertheless. Cornholioo reports that person for vandalism. Sysops rule that it isn't vandalism and that Cornholioo has to form an Arby's case. Cornholioo doesn't form an arby's case, so later on, the whole process repeats. I'm pretty sure the sysops are going to be sick of it.
Not that forming an arby's case is going to do any good. Cornholioo's header prohibits several people from talking to him, meaning that for his header to mean anything, he has to make an arby case for every single person. And what happens if, later on, Cornholioo wants to prohibt someone else from talking on his talk page? Another Arby's case. You guys are going to be sick.
It's just wasting time and causing drama. What I want is a simple solution to end bureacratic wrangling. All people are allowed to talk on Cornholioo's Talk Page, except for any non-sysop who is mentioned in Cornholioo's header. If anyone violates this, then the arbitrator can decide if he wants to take that violator to VB. That may not be what Cornholioo wants. So be it. But let's get this over with, please?
The main problem, of course, is finding an arbitator that the Entire Wiki Community would agree to. For lack of a better representive, I am willing to assume that the sysops represent the wiki community, and thus would be allowed to appoint an arbitator on behalf of the wiki community.--ShadowScope'the true enemy' 20:44, 5 May 2010 (BST)
- Speaking for myself, yep, I'm not too happy seeing new A/VB cases all the time, but if he keeps spamming up A/VB, he'll be escalated soon. Also, as of next week he can post to A/A again, and I expect a case or two of him vs. people that offend him. Restraining order arbitration cases are quick and simple, and there are only so many people that want to antagonize him anyway, so it's not like it can go on forever. Finally, something like what you propose is unenforceable, since you can't bind someone to a ruling of an arbitration case that they were never informed of or had a chance to participate in. Arbitrators are supposed to contact everyone involved to be sure that they are aware of the case and understand the ruling, but such a thing is impossible in your solution. —Aichon— 21:28, 5 May 2010 (BST)
Due to the previous rulings, corn has been unable to bring arbies cases without first checking them through a third party. This has curtailed the number of such cases. The point of the vandalism cases isn't just to show what corn believes to be vandalism, but also establishes a clear pattern on posts by people on his pages. Believe it or not, pretty much every arbitration case has resulted on mutual restraining orders against those people involved in the arbitration. Which leads to them being unable to post on his pages. Although its admirable you're trying to save time, there's no real point. If he asks for you not to post on his page, simply don't. --RosslessnessWant a Location Image? 21:34, 5 May 2010 (BST)
To basically sum up what Ross and Aichon have said, there is one simple rule you should probably stick to in situations such as this: Thou Shalt not feed the Trolls. The more you post on his page, the more he's just going to reply and attention seek so just leave him be. -- Cheese 21:38, 5 May 2010 (BST)
Cheese speaks the truth, almost all of the related drama could have been prevented if people just ignored him.--
Thadeous Oakley 22:08, 5 May 2010 (BST)
All this boils down into one thing: Stop being cunts and feeding a drama-mongering fuckstick. You're only adding fuel to the flames, and this case is just fucking retarded.-- Adward 22:30, 5 May 2010 (BST)
- I like my idea better. Let's keep the idiot talking just long enough to perma ban his ass... -Poodle of DoomM!
T 22:32, 5 May 2010 (BST)
/signed Adward. This is even more fucking stupid than Corholioo's cases and as a user who's been "banned" from talking to Corholioo on his talk page I don't want Shadowscope talking on my behalf at all. --
03:53, 6 May 2010 (BST)
fuck off shadowscope Cyberbob Talk 03:55, 6 May 2010 (BST)
Arbitration Cases in Progress
Recently Concluded cases
Iscariot vs Cornholioo
| Involved Users | Iscariot Vs. Cornholioo |
| Arbitrator | Rosslessness |
| Created | 11:31, 11 April 2010 (BST) by Iscariot |
| Status | Completed |
| Summary | Dispute over Battle of Krinks page. |
Cornholioo vs Michaleson and Poodle of doom
| Involved Users | Cornholioo Vs. Michaleson and Poodle of doom |
| Arbitrator | Rosslessness |
| Created | 11:10, 17 April 2010 (BST) by Cornholio |
| Status | Completed |
| Summary | Dispute over talk page edits. |
