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 (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.

edit Volunteer Arbitrators in Alphabetical Order
DanceDanceRevolution	Rosslessness

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.

User:Iscariot versus User:Cornholioo

The Battle of Krinks is over. And like the Imperium before them, the NSU insist on trying to alter the result to paint themselves in a better light, diminish the impact others had and for very straightforward propaganda purposes.

As per the example of this case I seek to have the result and subsequent alterations to the article judged and assessed by a neutral third party.

I shall accept any of the following as arbitrator:

• User:Rosslessness
• User:Aichon
• User:Rosslessness
• User:Revenant
• User:Rosslessness
• User:Amber Waves of Pain
• User:Rosslessness
• User:Misanthropy
• User:Rosslessness

Hugs and kisses. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 17:46, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Whilst a member of the Knights, my Knight character did not participate in this outing, as I was already in the area with a neutral alt, from uninvolved group Burning chiton. As such, I am not stepping down as a potential arbitrator, and can point Cornholioo towards incidents of past acrimony between Iscariot and myself as proof of my impartiality. 17:54, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

'past acrimony', I assume you me calling you on your attempts to meat puppet to gain a limited category as a propaganda bonus for your other group? -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 17:57, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to offer to be the neutral third part that will judge and assess the edits to the article. -Poodle of Doom^{M! T} 18:09, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

You attempted to ally with the Order to wipe out the other two factions, your ability to be impartial could be questioned, so I don't think you could arbitrate this case. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 18:20, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

I volunteer to arbitrate, if only to get shot down by Iscariot.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 18:34, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Accepted. --Cornholioo 19:07, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

You can take this as my shoot down ;) -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 14:52, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm just going to write down what is not correct about the page as it is right now. 1. the Coalition and the NSU have agreed the Battle of Krinks has ended on 21 March 2010. The PK do not recognize this, but keep editing the page to 22 March 2010. I would like to see this edited to 21 March 2010. 2. The NSU did not withdrew from the fight, but left after the fight was over to avoid a second one. I would like to see this edited. 3. Martino has posted this: "I revived Burning the Fire and killed a PKer inside the power station, but things do not look good. --Martino 22:31, 21 March 2010 (UTC)" on the talk page of the Battle of Krinks (http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php/Talk:Battle_of_Krinks). The PK keep denying to have lost a man. I would like to see the death count of the PK edited to 'dubious' untill further notice. 4. I have corrected this mistake: http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php?title=Battle_of_Krinks&diff=1679649&oldid=1679646 of Iscariot, which the Iscariot keeps editing back. This has nothing to do with the thing he reported me for, so I would like to see this edited. 5. The PK claim to have made an NPOV article. However, this: "On March 22 the Philosophe Knights declared complete victory and completion of their aims after the previous day's withdrawal of the NSU, the complete removal of non-Knights from Krinks and the pinata-ing of the entire building. Less than a week after entering the conflict, the Knights considered that they had made their lesson abundantly clear and that there was nothing further to accomplish.

With the NSU abandoning the area and the Philosophe Knights indicating that they would leave the area after having taught their lesson to both participants meant that Krinks would be left in the hands of the WWSIS and that the Battle of Krinks would come to a close.", is not NPOV. 6. The NSU doesn't agree on the results of this battle. The PK claim victory, but this is only subjective. The NSU can claim victory for several reasons as well. I would prefer to place only facts here. The only this that have changed, are: a. Krinks got partially ruined. b. The coalition got driven off krinks (most likely temporary). c. The PK have entered krinks (most likely temporary). 7. This is not completely right: "demanding a mutual cessation of conflict and offering future cooperation in protecting Malton's Power Stations." We have demanded a mutual cessation of conflict and offered to add to our wiki page that other survivor groups help us in achieving our goals. Also see this page: http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php/Talk:National_Socialist_Union.

A lot of this is POV or simply wrong. Still Iscariot keeps editing them back. The page has been locked now, so truth can't be spoken. --Cornholioo 18:42, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Truth? From a Nazi? Who treated a mainspace page like his own personal page? Yeah, right. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 14:52, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

As much as I'm flattered that Iscariot would name me as an arbitrator, I'm afraid I have a potential conflict of interest since I was an involved party (I participated in killing those inside Krinks with my Knight alt). While I do believe I could remain objective and impartial in a ruling on this subject, this matter can be easily resolved by other arbitrators, so I see no reason why I shouldn't recuse myself and save myself the hassle of dealing with accusations of partiality should the ruling not go the way people want. So, yeah, I'm recusing myself. Cheers. —Aichon— 18:53, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't know jack about any of this, so I'd make a perfectly impartial party! I've no ties against or for either party that would influence me unfairly in arbitrating this case. Lelouch vi Britannia is helping make Ridleybank green_ and gives Achievements 00:45, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

LOL-Bias. Accept Yonnua. Lets see how he's developing as a member of the community. --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 10:54, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

No, you do it :P -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 14:52, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Chucking my hat in the ring. I watch the PK talk page and read the battle of the krinks page once, but that's my entire involvement. --Karloth Vois ^¯\(°_o)/¯ 13:13, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

You have a concrete history of vandalising Philosophe Knight pages, can you guess what my response is going to be? -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 14:52, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

I offer to arbitrate. -- Cheese 16:27, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

User:Cornholioo versus User:Devorac

Hello,

Sorry if I'm doing this wrong. I was told I could report someone on this page. So, a user called Devorac has been causing vandalism to the Battle of Krinks page. He has been re-adding subjective texts after I've removed them. See also this link: http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php?title=Battle_of_Krinks&diff=1677678&oldid=1677674 Could anyone please give him a warning or something?

Thanks in advance,

Cornholioo.

This is not a subjective text. The Philosophe Knights Have declared our position in the Battle of Krinks. We will be joining the battle. Unless the meaning of subjective has changed while I was gone this is in no way "Subjective". I would like to file a counter-case against Cornholioo for constantly editing material pertaining to the Battle of Krinks. If possible I would like to have a neutral arbitrator appointed to the page, rather than have 48/63 page edits made by the same person, even if no bias is meant it is sure to be imparted. -Devorac 18:17, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Stuff you are signing there yourself, like what we are posting here, can be subjective. Calling both parties (WWSIS and NSU) "stupid", is subjective. I would rather only place facts on the page "Battle of Krinks", not signed stuff. --Cornholioo 12:27, 21 March 2010 (UTC).

Right, well Arbitration isn't about "warning" people or "reporting" them. It's about solving the underlying issues under page disputes, and ensuring that there aren't problems about. It's essentially in the form of discussion between the involved parties led by a neutral arbitrator (who the sides will agree on before the case begins). At the end, the arbitrator will make a ruling based on the discussion, designed to resolve the issues at hand. For instance, in your case, it'll likely involve a ruling on what should happen to the page in question, and will likely include a ruling to stop you contacting each other to stir up more problems.

As such, I volunteer to arbitrate this case. There's also a list of other users who might be willign to arbitrate above. Both parties should, if they are willing to proceed, nominate users who they would accept to arbitrate the case.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 19:00, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

I accept Yonnua Koponen as arbitrator for the case. -Devorac 19:02, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

I offer to arbitrate. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 19:51, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

As you're a Philosophe Knight, I feel you should probably note the fact that you're an associated party to one side.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 19:52, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

I think the very clear link in my sig might give it away. Also, my Knight is a non-combatant and will not be taking part in this Krink's business, he's busy at the mansion. So much for your involved party argument. However I do have experience in resolving disputes between diametrically opposed parties, including BB2, MT09, the Knights to name but a few. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 19:55, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

I know, I just feel you should let them know before a group member of one of the party's arbitrates the case.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 19:58, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Have you disclosed that you are in fact a dirty communist in real life? -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 20:02, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

I thank you Iscariot, and I more than welcome your advice in the coming matters. However I would like this done in such a way that there is no chance for bias, whether perceived or real. As such I cannot in good faith accept either you or Misanthropy as an arbitrator. Thanks anyway Izzy. -Devorac 20:03, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Yonnua, after reviewing case archives I have decided to revoke my acceptance of you. Nothing against you I just would like a different Arbitrator, If possible I would like Rosslessness as an arbitrator. -Devorac 20:31, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm so popular. Of course I'll arbie, if both parties accept. --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 20:35, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm sitting in Krinks right now, sippin' tea with AHLG and watching everything. I'd be happy to arbitrate. --

 

 

 

 

00:55, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Cheerio lads, I'd be willing to head-up this sorting. Lelouch vi Britannia is helping make Ridleybank green_ and gives Achievements 04:35, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to remind all parties involved that it's standard procedure to leave the offending edit as it stood when the arbitration started, and not to continue to revert each other. Given that Cornholioo started this arbitration at 17:58, 18/03, I'm going to revert back to the latest version of the page in question at that point, and I don't care who made it. Until this case is closed, both parties are asked to refrain from further editing of the page section in question. Thanks. 21:50, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Then you're completely wrong. Cornholioo started the arbitration so it's Devorac's edits that are contested. The page should remain on Cornholioo's preferred state. This isn't A/P, protection isn't based on time of cycling. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 22:33, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Aha. Carry on then. 22:44, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

I accept Yonnua Koponen or DanceDanceRevolution as arbitrator. I do not accept Iscariot and Rosslessness as arbitrator. --Cornholioo 12:32, 21 March 2010 (UTC).

I recommend you reconsider Ross as an arbitrator. He's probably the most experienced, and I'm certain he'll be neutral.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 12:59, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

I know his type, he only denyed those as the opposing candinate wanted them. --^TCAPD(╯°□°)╯ ┻━┻ 14:53, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

I denied him because I don't think he's neutral. But believe whatever you want. --Cornholioo 17:45, 21 March 2010 (UTC).

I did point out a spelling mistake of Corn's once. Could be construed as bias. Besides you know how anti freedom of speech I am. --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 12:00, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

I recommend you take Rosslessness. I can guarantee you that Yonnua and DDR aren't going to be accepted. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 17:50, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Seeing that Ross, Iscariot, and Yonnua have been eliminated as potential arbitrators, I offer myself to arbitrate. I've reviewed the details of the case carefully, looking through the history and talk page of the Battle of Krinks. I am familiar with the facts and I'll rule impartially after hearing the arguments of both sides, with the goal of establishing fair and clear guidelines for the editing of the page in question.--_GANG Giles Sednik _CAPD 13:14, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

I accept. --Cornholioo 18:06, 21 March 2010 (UTC).

Could I make one little suggestion? Even though this has been disguised as a dispute between two individuals, it's really a dispute between two groups in a way,... these groups being the NSU, and the Philosophe Knights. But regardless of how you view what I've just said, I don't think that it is appropriate for either party to be editing the page as can be seen here until this case is over.... -Poodle of Doom^{M! T} 04:26, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Did you even read the case's discussion here, or look at the history? I don't think there was a single phrase you just said that hasn't been assumed or agreed on already. The only edits made after it was decided that the edit in dispute should remain untouched was to simply update the battle to signify the end, which is agreed on and has little significance to this arbitration case. --

 

 

 

 

04:37, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

You missed my point all togethor. Like Giles states below,... arbitration appears to still be going on to me. I've seen nothing stating it has concluded. That said, until the two parties involved agree as to wether it should be NPOV, or POV, neither should be editing it. And as for telling me it's something that hasn't been agreed to... that's why it's a suggestion. -Poodle of Doom^{M! T} 14:04, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

The current charges have been dropped on our end. -Devorac 06:36, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

There's still the matter of cornholioo requesting arbitration in regards to "re-adding subjective texts", for which I am available. Of course, you're both free at any time to reach your own consensus about how you want to handle the article in question. If you can agree to collectively write the article either POV or NPOV, and stick to it, then there will be no need for arbitration. --_GANG Giles Sednik _CAPD 08:43, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

I think there is still need for arbitration. Devorac, do you agree to take Giles Sednik as arbitrator? --Cornholioo 9:01, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Decide carefully, we are dropping this case. You can have your edit back if you want, I won't revert it. The battle has progressed to the point that fighting over this particular edit is a wee bit silly. You can press the case, I wouldn't advise it though. -Devorac 16:51, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

You have broken the rules by editing the whole page, including the part which was under arbitration. I hope the admins will react on this correctly. --Cornholioo 18:16, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Those claims are false. My editing ability is restricted on that page (Along with yours), Iscariot was not shackled by our Arbitration case. Unless you want to be fighting this battle on two fronts I once again suggest that you drop this case. -Devorac 18:36, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

You are in the same group. It's a bit strange that we get restricted and then someone that is in the same group just edits it to something else, while it's under arbitration right here. --Cornholioo 19:03, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

It ever occur to you to just let the page be, and dispute the claims on your own page? Seriously, you want to take issue with it? Put it in your name space, and no one would be able to do a damn thing about it, now STFU, and quit whining, dumbass. -Poodle of Doom^{M! T} 19:13, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Unless the arrogant and offending tune of this post, I'll tell you that this is not about making claims here, it's about reproducing facts, reproducing the truth. Take such a tune again and I will report it, though. --Cornholioo 21:30, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Obviously, the whole community is dead set against you, and your "facts"... so again STFU,... quit whining,... and add this bs to your namespace where no one would give two shits less. These are strong suggestions.... they will get people off your back in a hurry. Trust me,... then again, what would I expect from such ignorant, arrogant, and all out pathetic low lifes such as you. After seeing images like the ones I just linked to... do you really feel like getting all whiney assed with me, and go off on some lonely rant about how arrogant, and cocky I am, and further distance yourself from this community? -Poodle of Doom^{M! T} 03:25, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Quoting on this part: "the whole community is dead set against you, and your "facts"...", that makes no sense. As long as I only report facts, then everything is alright. So you now have a case against you. --Cornholioo 6:17, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Look, you've filed against two people above, neither one of which are giving you any leeway. Second of all, some facts have been disputed,... and other's have been questioned, and I can't say that I blame them considering you made the majority of edits to the page. Still don't believe your facts are wrong, or the the community is against you (read "you're against the whole of the community"). Second,... take my suggestion. Post it under your user mainspace. It's a good idea, and no one would be able to do anything about it. Now stop talking stupid shit, and move on.... -Poodle of Doom^{M! T} 12:32, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Wow, wait. This cases aren't about giving away any leeway or not. It's about stuff which is going on either party does not agree with. This involves three cases I've started against someone else and one case someone else started against me. The longer you are going to use the argument: "you're not right because the whole community is against you", the more weird it's sounding in my eyes. As long as I try to be objective and place facts, I have a clean conscience. Why would I care what someone else thinks about that then? If you don't agree with them that is absolutely fine. For that there's an edit button and a talk page, oh, and a possibility to report people if needed. But no, you lack healthy thinking as well as clever speaking, so you qualify someone elses post as "stupid shit". Do I have to continue? I don't think so. --Cornholioo 14:58, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Let me make this very clear, the general tone I got from the community who's posted on the talk page is that your a dick, and nobody likes you. I never said that makes you wrong.... Second of all,... you don't like the page, well you can't edit it now, because it's protected.... which brings me to my third point: if you want to dispute it without pissing off the entire community, make it part of your user name space, and no one will screw with the damn thing again!! That's all I'm saying,.... and to believe, out of all those sperm, your stupid ass was the fastest.... -Poodle of Doom^{M! T} 21:35, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, now we have another arbitration case over the Battle of Krinks. The longer this drags along in limbo the more drama will form around it. As the only potential arbitrator to have not been shot down yet, I'd like to see this process either started or put to rest in a timely fashion. In that interest, I'd respectfully ask all parties to please keep the side debates to the talk page so we can focus on the task at hand. There's really only a couple of questions that matter: Devorac, do you wish to have an arbitration? If so, will you either confirm me as arbitrator or name a different candidate? Thanks :) --_GANG Giles Sednik _CAPD 10:54, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Everything's going to be decided on my case Giles, this one's as good as dead. Devorac will not accept any arbitrator and the point of this case is null considering that both parties' versions are going to be overruled by mine when I win my case. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 14:58, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Counting your chickens already? If a fair standard can be established whereby everyone can contribute to the article without inciting edit wars, then another arby case would be unnecessary. Also, Devorac has yet to respond to my query, so I'll wait and see if I'm still needed.--_GANG Giles Sednik _CAPD 17:02, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

User:Iscariot versus User:Ravenium

Ravenium has:

1. engaged in a smear campaign against the Militant Order of Barhah
2. refused to provide any proof of his allegations
3. edited to remove all credit of MOB (even when allowed by NPOV guidelines) from danger reports
4. refused to listen to basic logic and proof that has been provided by other users
5. engaged in edit wars in bad faith to try and force his pro-survivor view on contested pages

I contest his edits to the Pole Mall danger report and seek to have these matter resolved by an arbitrator.

I will accept User:Revenant, User:Grogh, User:Amber Waves of Pain or User:Rosslessness as arbitrator. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 02:38, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Having seen this edit war in progress, I'll vouch for Izzy's side of things. Ravenium has been heavy-handedly biased in labelled others as 'griefers' and reverting NPOV reports. 02:48, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

I realize Iscariot has named those he would like, however, if they decline I will volunteer myself to arbitrate. --Maverick ^{Talk - OBR 404} 06:32, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Sure I'll arby. Thats my only comment on the case I'll make, to avoid bias.--Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 09:38, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

I shove my hand in the air, in case this user does not accept anyone from Iscariot's list.--Big Cat 10:10, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

I too volunteer in the event of the other party not accepting anyone from Iscariot's list.-- Adward  21:18, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

As an involved party (MOB leadership), I must abstain from arbitrating. However, I will be watching the case with interest. ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 14:47, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Two weeks have passed since this case began and there has been no acknowledgement from Ravenium, nor any further contributions. Therefore there is no further disruption to the danger reports on this wiki. I'm happy for this to be archived. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 14:54, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Arbitration Cases in Progress

There are currently no recently concluded cases, see the archives for older cases

Archives

• List of Arbitration Cases