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.

Arbitration Cases in Progress

User:Spiderzed and Big Coffin Hunters vs User:tyx94 and User:Yonnua Koponen vs Dulston Alliance and Burchell Arms Regulars

This case is being brought over Template:Dulston Groups. Tyx94 has repeatedly changed the position of the survivor group Big Coffin Hunters to Hostile Groups (or respectively Zombie Groups).

Requests on Tyx94's talk page by two different users to stop those unqualified edits have been voiced, but have been met with announcements to continue the edit warring. As BCH see no other way left to resolve this matter, we've decided to take it to arbitration.

I, Spiderzed, have been appointed as representative of BCH.

As for arbitrators, we'd accept the following as fair and unbiased third-parties:

• User:Ashley Valentine
• User:DeWolf
• User:Franz Molotov
• User:Headless gunner
• User:Karloth vois
• User:Mr Watt
• User:Rapture
• User:Skoll
• User:The Colonel
• User:Zombiegeorge

-- Spiderzed▋ 16:13, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Bullshit, all biased. Add me to Tyx94's side of the argument. I've had enough of you guys fucking with the group listing too, and I haven't had a good raeg off yet this month.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 16:16, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

I expected the other party to try to disrupt the process by refusing all arbitrators out of hand. So I prepared a second set of less unbiased, but still acceptable arbitrators along with reasons why they can be trusted:

• User:AnimeSucks - Resens admin and former bounty hunter in the DA area
• User:DT - PKA admin
• User:Lois Millard - RG moderator
• User:Maverick Farrant - leader of an ally group of Dulston Alliance
• User:Misanthropy - wiki sysop
• User:Sexualharrison - completely uninvolved, but still wiki-savvy
• User:Sherry Stringfield - strictly pro-survivor

As for adding yourself, I'd be fine. Would Tyx be it too? -- Spiderzed▋ 16:22, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

As I said on Tyx's page I'd rather see this go through policy. Basically you should determine through policy whether or not suburb group lists are confined to being NPOV (which I think they should) before determine whether groups are survivor/pk/zed through arbitration. --Thadeous Oakley Talk 16:24, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Thadeous. While we will need to arbitrate it, let's wait until after a policy is established. Yon, I'm going to need your wiki knowledge, so any help is appreciated. And I much prefer the second list of arbitrators.--tyx94 16:26, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Why don't you try suggesting people who are actually on the list of arbitrators? By which I mean that DT, Lois, Anime, Sexual, Sherry and Misanthropy are grossly inappropriate, and I wouldn't want anybody associated with either group arbitrating.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 17:50, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Both Maverick and Misanthropy are on the list of arbitrators. The others might not be, but that has never been a hindrance. -- Spiderzed▋ 18:22, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

I guess no policy on (N)POVness of suburb pages then? Well have fun with arbitration :) --Thadeous Oakley Talk 17:54, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

I'd be willing for one, but I can tell you now that it will just be meatpuppeted out.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 17:56, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Lol, establishing through policy. I offer my hat as an arbie. --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 16:49, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

I accept you, but I don't know who else will.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 17:50, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

I accept Ross. However, we absolutely need to have Tyx on board, as he has been the offending party, and a ruling would be senseless without results affecting him. Either he sticks around for this, or lets Yon act in his absence and accepts the fall-out. -- Spiderzed▋ 18:22, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Cool. Although you would need to clarify his position slightly. Is he representing soley tyx's interest or is he representing the DA? --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 19:00, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

I think Tyx is actually representing BAR. Although I don't know if he has a DA alt as well. -- Spiderzed▋ 19:07, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Tyx and I should both accept, and I'm not representing the DA, I'm representing the wiki as a game resource.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 19:36, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Well lets wait for that then. --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 19:44, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

I would honestly rather try and make a policy first. Wouldn't it be smarter to establish a precendent to go off of? At any rate, I have no problem with Ross; I'm sure he'd be fine. And I'm acting on my own here, not representing any group at all. Just wanna see this get resolved one way or another.--tyx94 20:14, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

OK. Case postponed, whilst Tyx tries to create a workable policy. --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 20:15, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Hasn't this been resolved before with groups like the Philosophe Knights and TZH? Standard practice has always been to let groups list where they feel appropriate, not for outsiders to change it at will. 19:42, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

I thought so too. Thus I expect this case to be very easy and quick. -- Spiderzed▋ 19:44, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Why even bother with categories then? It sounds like any group can list whatever category they want to be in, and so the groupings have no real, consistent meaning. We might as well just remove the categories and list everyone underneath "Groups."-MHSstaff 20:00, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

That's kind of my feeling here. Either we use the categories right, or why use them at all? If they aren't accurate information, we're better off throwing categories out altogether.--tyx94 20:14, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

If I could have a word. I had a thought on this when I was debating on placing Organization XIII onto Lockettside's Survivor group listing, but because we've been helping zeds more since the ratio have been favoring survivors since Org XIII began, I believed there would be edit warring on Org XIII's placing, despite the fact Org XIII is both Pro-Survivor and Hostile (depending on that one important population ratio), and as such, I've yet to add Org XIII to the group listing. I tried to bring up adding Dual Nature onto the suburb group templates, although that discussion currently has gotten nowhere, as no one bothered to pay any mind to it. --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ ^{#nerftemplatedsigs} 20:52, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

Was going to bring this up myself. -- †  talk ? f.u. 10:54, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Hmmm... nothing for over a week. Withdraw? -- †  talk ? f.u. 14:35, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

The policy discussion has still two days left before being cycled, while the template talk page has no closing date. Still, this looks like one of the many arbies that fade away with a whimper. -- Spiderzed▋ 15:52, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

The template talk has two closing dates: Feb. 28th for nominations, and March 15 for voting. -MHSstaff 17:43, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

I refuse to rescind this claim. Either it's solved through PD or the template talk, or I'm having your group forcibly moved to the correct section through arbies.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 16:07, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Forcibly moved? --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 16:47, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm assuming an impartial arbitrator will force them to move it to the correct section.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 18:13, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, we don't force, we rule. Failure to follow the ruling results in a double escalation. --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 18:16, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Ergh, it's effective forcing. And since it's a community page, an arbitrator can put it in a specific way and tell involved parties not to change it, so technically they can't be forced to do it, but it can be forced to happen by an arbitrator.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 18:44, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

But surely you'd want a precedent, so future issues of editing the page could be handled quickly? You want something that allows you to modify the page regardless of who changes it? --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 18:46, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Yep, which is why I'd prefer to solve this through the template talk or PD route, but if those policies fail or whatnot, I think it's best that this case stays open so that I don't have to remake it later.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 18:58, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

As for escalations and enforcement, I'd like to point out in advance that Yon and tyx refused to represent the DA or BAR. As that leaves an easy loophole to circumvent any ruling by employing meatpuppets for editing the template, I'd like either the arbitrator taking this into consideration in the final ruling. Or to allow me to drop BCH's participation, to allow all parties to get out on equal footing. -- Spiderzed▋ 19:20, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, when did we refuse to represent the DA and BAR. If you want to bullshit people so that they agree with you, at least don't do it when it's visible that you're lying from the page. I'm doing this in the best interest of the suburb as an information source, but if you want, I'll happily say I'm a representative of Dead vs Blue, just so that you don't have to bullshit.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 00:07, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

I think he may have been somehow led to believe you weren't representing DA when you said "I'm not representing the DA". I have no idea how though. 00:20, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

No, ebcause he said that we're "refusing" to represent our groups. There's a massive gulf of difference.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 00:42, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

If you're not refusing then why not do it in the first place? You deliberately stated who you were attempting to represent almost from the outset; firmly deciding one thing usually means rejecting the notion of anything mutually exclusive with it. Are you or are you not in this arby as a representative of DA or as an individual, or what? Pick something and stick with it so the thing can go as smoothly as possible. 00:46, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm in this as an individual, but I'm willing to extend it to my group if spiderzed wants. Now stop trolling and GTFO unless you have something actually related to the case to say.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 00:48, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm hardly trolling, you idiot. A point was raised, you got unnecessarily hostile, and I asked directly how your involvement in the case should be treated so everyone knew clearly. And I'm the troll? I've already stated I want to be involved in this due to its likely effect on PK, so I am contributing usefully, unlike some. Now if you've nothing more civil or constructive to add, keep quiet until Tyx indicates how he wishes to proceed and this thing actually moves onwards. 00:51, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Both Tyx and Yon do have a vested, group-related interest into re-classifying BCH, as indicated by the multi-pages thread about BCH on the Dulston Alliance forums, and threats of war by BAR against BCH that were issued at the same time as this case was brought up. It is blatantly obvious to any neutral reader that this just serves to open another front-line in this "war", and is also a bad faith attempt of deception, in order to hedge their bets in case that the arbies case turns out against them by still allowing fellow group members and meat puppets to edit the suburb template at will. I thus refuse to recognize either as representative of "the wiki as an information source", but would rather accept User:Misanthropy as representative of this party (who isn't involved in either side of this conflict and thus a better representative than any other currently involved party including me). -- Spiderzed▋ 04:45, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Except that a similar argument could be made to where any member of any PKing group, any member of any GKing group, any member of any ZKing group, or really, any member of any group that is not crystal clear, black-and-white, "Zombie," "Survivor," or "Hostile" would also have a "vested" interest in this. Some of them,(Mis) have already posted on the talk page that they would support your POV to protect their "vested" interests. If you were to lose this case, what's to stop you from using your PK connections to have them edit the template at will?

Yeah. This kinda cuts both ways. My point is if you are going to ask Ross to keep in mind "meat-puppet" voting from vested parties, including ones not even listed on that template page, well, as a neutral reader, I think there are two sides to that coin, and you should probably ask Ross to consider both sources if this ruling is to actually be useful. You know. To avoid any bad faith attempts at deception.-MHSstaff 05:40, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Can you stop trying to get your friends involved as neutral parties please?--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 12:09, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm tired of playing games of semantics. As the aggrieved party, I use my right of accusation to additionally seek justice against BAR and DA. For now, I'll list them as a third party (as Yon still insists on representing "best interest of the suburb as an information source", while Tyx hasn't yet answered to potentially change his stance as "acting on my own here"). It's up to them to either get a representative here, to appoint Yon/Tyx for that purpose, or to get convicted in absence. -- Spiderzed▋ 13:40, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

As I said; I'm more than happy to represent Dead vs Blue.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 15:21, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

I asked for the entire Dulston Alliance, rather than just for Dead vs Blue. Else, that would be as useful as getting a dedicated MFD representative in a case that concerns the entire DEM. -- Spiderzed▋ 15:31, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, but since the dulston alliance is merely an organisation consisting of multiple member groups, if you want a rep, you'll have to settle for one from each member group. I could probbly get them if you want, but some of the groups don't access the wiki v. often. Alright?--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 00:56, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

remind me not to post a comment and then disappear for a day... I remembered yesterday about the waiting-for-the-policy thing, but couldn't get on yesterday. Now all this greets me when I come back to check... -- †  talk ? f.u. 03:18, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Hey, asshats... Arbys isn't for "justice" or "retribution". It exists to arbitrate edit conflicts, not to act as some kind fo Wild West back alley vigilante court. Furthmore, I want to take this opportunity -- as a member-at-large of the wiki-as-a-game resource to formally protest the following statement by Yonnua Koponen: "I'm not representing the DA, I'm representing the wiki as a game resource" Speaking as a UDwikizen, I unquivocally state that you, sir, do not in any way, shape or form represent me or my activities in making the wiki a better game resource. Nothing personal... but you don't speak for me. Not one bit. --05:43, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Anyway, thanks for all this, its really useful. As noted elsewhere a suburb template discussion is under way and until thats completed this is going nowhere. --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 15:20, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Hey, I have an idea! Why not stop being drama whores and add a blurb about the "war" to that post-breakout background section of the Dullston page? It's not like that section has ever been subject to drama-mongering... ;P Seriously, a blurb belong there, it's out of date, look what happens when I go away!!! And btw I was just calling y'all drama whores to be a big, wet drama whore, myself. But, seriously... Add a blurb about how the Marlboro King Size Undertakers or whatever they're called are at war with the DA -- who dispute their claim to being a pro-survivor group. Case arbitrated, viola! Move along now, ladies and germs. --WanYao 03:24, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Recently Concluded cases

Please see Category:Arbitration Cases for older arbitration cases.

Archives

• List of Arbitration Cases