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 Protector of the Consensus versus User:Hagnat

For this edit.

Hagnat is attempting to stealth rule on future cases that highlight his own failures as a systems operator. Such behaviour is clearly contentious, but with the current climate I am forced to take this to arbitration rather than elsewhere. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 03:16, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

You might as well add me to that there Boysenberry, and I would hazard a guess that you'll have to end up adding most of the rest of the Sysop's as well. The edit was not from "on high" and does not limit users such as yourself from filing said frivolous misconduct cases, but in good faith provide some guidelines based upon the recent trends in misconduct cases. In other words the inherent structure and function of the admin pages makes any sysop inherently connected to the admin pages themselves, ergo such an edit must be done by intrinsically connected user. Conndraka^{mod TAZM CFT} 04:28, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I dont accept this case, as iscariot has failed to even attempt to contact me about the nature of this edits. Also, the edit in question is one made by a member of the administration staff in an administration page, with an administration request backed out by another sysop. Its like we editing a group page which we belong to. --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{talk mod} 10:32, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

It's nothing like a group page, Hagnat. You don't have any ownership rights over it -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 11:02 13 January 2009 (BST)

Yeah, it was a poor comparisson. --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{talk mod} 11:18, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Umbrella Biohazard Containment Service vs Umbrella Corporation

Involved Users	Umbrella Biohazard Containment Service, Umbrella Corporation
Arbitrator	undefined
Created	23:33, 9 January 2009 (UTC) by Haliman - Talk
Status	Undefined
Summary	Due to the increased hostility, vandalism, insults, spais, murder, etc. (anything bad, it's happened.) I have been told to go to Arbies. I will accept fair Arby.

Once again, I offer to arbitrate. I have a good knowledge of the happenings (both past and present) in this case and you both know me to be impartial. -- Cheese 23:35, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Accepted. I seemed vague in the request for this case, but you already know. This case will solve everything, right? Not just that one page? --Haliman - Talk 23:36, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Hopefully, but both groups have to want this to make any resolution work. -- Cheese 23:39, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Ohhh....can't we another restraining order again or something..or deletion of both biased war reports.--Thadeous Oakley 23:40, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Wiki wise, the UBCS has done nothing to vandalize Umbrella's pages. We want the vandalism to stop. Trust me. --Haliman - Talk 23:42, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm here to represent UBCS too.--LithedarkangelMeth!^{The Great Meth Man} 23:42, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Thadeous: We can do that as well, but if you want we can use this as a sort of mediation to get all your issues with each other sorted. Either way, would you be willing to accept me as arbitrator? -- Cheese 23:45, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

*goes to offline*

Thadeous has gone to sleep can I get an update on this arbitration, I have refused to read anything Haliman posts due to the dangerous raises in blood pressure it tends to cause me (sarcasm). Let me catch myself up and then we'll try and work an agreement.President Jackson 00:16, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Now that I have a better understanding, I would rather just apologize for editing that particular wiki page. I don't have a history of malicious editing and the edit in its purpose wasn't malicious at all. I am still a wiki noob as I don't have a complete understand of the wiki coding, I assumed that that particular page was neutral when I edited it being that it was 'our' war. I am currently constructing our own page for this war so there should no longer be confusion by any members like Beau or myself. I am not really familiar with arbitration but if its going to do the same thing as it did with 'Umbrella' routing options than I don't think it could be a problem but I find it unnecessary. Oh and since my name is fixed could I have my toolbar back please?President Jackson 00:27, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Would both groups be happy just to have a NPOV, mainspace (that is, owned by neither group,) page documenting the war? Linkthewindow  Talk  01:46, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Wouldn't that create a huge opportunity for an all-out edit war? I think that's what happening right now as well.--SirArgo ^Talk 01:49, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

As SirArgo said. That is a possibility, better not making it possible.--LithedarkangelMeth!^{The Great Meth Man} 01:53, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Its fine the way it is now, I have finished our own page, and now that I have more knowledge of the wiki I don't think this should be an issue again. Sorry for the outburst earlier but you must see it from my ignorant point of view earlier. I don't think this Arbitration is necessary. Also can I have my toolbar back? Where do I go to ask for my toolbar?President Jackson 03:47, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

What toolbar are you on about? =/ You've asked about it at least 4 or 5 times but you haven't clarified what or where it actually is. -- Cheese 17:12, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

The only toolbar in the wiki? The wiki toolbar that appears at the top of the selected page for editing. Contains things like the button that places your signature.President Jackson 20:38, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Clikc on your preferences, edit, and then check to see if what I circled is checked or not.-- dǝǝɥs oʇ ɯɐds: sʎɐʍ1ɐ! 20:55, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks man! I don't know how that got unchecked. Didn't even know that was possible.--President Jackson 02:57, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

That only works when both sides are willing to put pettiness aside, and leave their bad blood on the battlefield... so, let the trenchy vs. trenchy propaganda war begin! and may the best group win look slightly less foolish in the end -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 07:12 10 January 2009 (BST)

And that's why I propose deletion of both the pages.--Thadeous Oakley 10:59, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Umm, no, Thadeous.President Jackson 20:38, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

In case they're still trying to decide on an arbitrator I'll volunteer. I've gotten used to stress in my life, I'd miss it if there wasn't any all of a sudden. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 11:20, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Likewise I offer my services, apart from the lack of stress.--Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 11:25, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Likewise. Anyone getting Deja Vu here?-- Adward  18:27, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Fourthed. I'll arby if necessary. --Pestolence^(talk) 21:10, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

If you would like it, I offer to arbitrate as well.--SirArgo ^Talk 21:18, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Well since we both have our own war "report" now can't we leave at that? I really don't feel anything for an arb case. Besides, cant we settle this at our forum under the same negotiation topic? There is no use in creating an in-game peace when this "wiki war" continues.--Thadeous Oakley 23:27, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I'd help, but you banned me. As for the reports, one public report would be better than two POV'd ones. --Haliman - Talk 23:34, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

You actually said: Screw negotiations on your forums! --LithedarkangelMeth!^{The Great Meth Man} 00:45, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Right, UBCS requested this arbitration, accordingly the community assumes that they will participate and represent themselves. One question only is currently relevant, will Umbrella participate in this arbitration and represent themselves? This question requires a yes or no answer from Umbrella regarding their participation according to the statues set out in the arbitration precedents. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 02:09, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Ok I am confused. Didn't the UBCS and Umbrella Corporation agree to disagree by having their own pages for this war, because I am pretty sure that's what I was trying to put across. No I am not thinking Arbi's, things are fine the way they are now and should be left at that.President Jackson 02:52, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

You aren't following, your 'agreement' with UBCS means precisely dick now. UBCS brought this case, it implies that they are unhappy with how the current arrangement is progressing. Therefore, as it has been brought, this is now an arbitration case, if you choose not to represent yourself, a representative will be chosen for you and the arbitration will progress and you will be bound by that result. I personally couldn't give a shit about whatever agreement the pair of you have, you are both filling up my admin pages with your drama and if I can I'll end it here and now. Therefore, under the Arbitrations Guidelines that I have explained to you, the precedent you can read from past cases and the guidelines linked from this page; Will Umbrella represent themselves in this case aginst UBCS? -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 03:04, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Sure, why not, since this freakin thing cannot just be dropped now. Oi vey.--President Jackson 05:39, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually, it can. All it takes is the user who created this case to drop it --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{talk mod} 05:41, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Oh well then why don't we wait on word from them first? I have to sleep anyway, I have only had 2hrs these past 2 days.President Jackson 05:44, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I volunteer to be Arbitatortot. I am unbiased because I think both groups are full of faggots. I will not choose one faggot over another for I hate both you. I will, however, decide which faggot is less wrong and choose that one as the winner of the case. I would then prescribe the correct solution to solve this faggotry that ails your two groups. Failure to accept my proposal would result in big punishments, and possible lynchings. Sounds fair? --Sonny Corleone ^{DORIS I jizzed in my pants pr0n} 05:50, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I add myself to the overabundance of arbitrators, except I am neutral towards both groups, and less lynchings :|. Linkthewindow  Talk  06:01, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I am still for keeping both pages and leaving it at. Creating a POV public page instead seems impossible to me.--Thadeous Oakley 09:47, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

This is for making a public POV page, and to stop Umbrella's vandalism. Impossible? We will make a page public, and count confirmed kills to keep everything accurate. Neither memberlist will be on the page, and only a basic summary of the war will be included, along with the battle template. I'm sure even Umbrella can figure out how to do that. --Haliman - Talk 18:31, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I am going to have to disagree with this. The vandalism stopped days ago (with exception to the mistakes made earlier) and this Arbitration is only being pursued by Haliman's UBCS in order to have our Operation: War Drums wiki page removed, since it is threatening to the survival of their group. I would also like to state to Haliman that unless this Arbitration case is dropped I will release secret information on your groups plan to create zerg impostors of the Umbrella Corporation in order to cause havoc with Malton (specifically Shearbank) locals.--President Jackson 19:03, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

They can't start a arbitration case about this without us, so far as I know.--Thadeous Oakley 19:10, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

That is correct. Both sides have to accept the arbitrator and their ruling. Linkthewindow  Talk  23:05, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Incorrect. If you choose not to represent yourself other users can be chosen to represent you, this has happened in the past. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 23:09, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

You know many "unconfirmed" (no screenshot) kills we have made? Unless you take my word for it I am not going to work along to create a false page.--Thadeous Oakley 19:05, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Funny thing is, he SHOULD know, apparently his UBCS members have been keeping screen shots of us killing them seeing as I have received a few that we didn't have pictures of at the time LOL!--President Jackson 19:10, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

"Arbitration is only being pursued by Haliman's UBCS in order to have our Operation: War Drums wiki page removed, since it is threatening to the survival of their group." - Threatening to our survival? We're kicking your ass. "I will release secret information on your groups plan to create zerg impostors of the Umbrella Corporation in order to cause havoc with Malton (specifically Shearbank) locals." - You're an idiot. What proof do you have? "i saw dem say dis in s soopur sekrit forum!!!" I have proof of Umbrella zerging, which I will post RIGHT now. You brought this upon yourself. --Haliman - Talk 19:33, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

And Umbrella thinks that you two don't need to go to arby...--SirArgo ^Talk 19:38, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

"Threatening to our survival? We're kicking your ass." And I will just pretend I don't have evidence for that being a lie. "You're an idiot. What proof do you have? "i saw dem say dis in s soopur sekrit forum!!!" I have proof of Umbrella zerging, which I will post RIGHT now. You brought this upon yourself." Before this turns into some sort of flame war, we don't have any secret zerging being used to make impostors of the UBCS in order to cause chaos for the other group. The zerging you are likely referring to Haliman is most likely use of some characters that are enrolled in the Umbrella Corporation B.O.W. Program and essentially operate as an alt with Dual Nature intent.--President Jackson 19:44, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Dividy Header

To try and get things moving, here are the users who have put their hands up to arby. Please can you guys agree on an arbitrator so this can get resolved.

• Cheese
• Iscariot
• Rosslessness
• Drawde
• Pestolence
• SirArgo
• Sonny
• Linkthewindow
  

That's a reasonable list so take your pick. -- Cheese 21:07, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm good with Ross, Pest, or Link. --Haliman - Talk 21:11, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

On second thought, I'm striking my name. I don't need this much drama right now. --Pestolence^(talk) 22:12, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Seriously? We're still going through with this? I choose SirArgo. I guess I'll take the time to get those screen shots of the zerging conspirators.--President Jackson 01:11, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I would chose Cheese, myself. He knows the most of the story, far more then anyone else. But this case needs to concern the general Umbrella/UBCS thingy. Not just some war report. --Thadeous Oakley 15:29, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Thadeous (Yeah, I said it.) That's kinda what I hoped it to do. --Haliman - Talk 03:37, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Arbitration Cases in Progress

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