UDWiki:Administration/Arbitration

From The Urban Dead Wiki
Jump to navigationJump to search

Template:Moderationnav

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

Arbitration Cases Currently Under Consideration

Cyberbob240 vs. 2 Cool

This circlejerk association group have plastered their template on a number of pages which, although they have been created or worked on by 2 Cool members, are in the public namespace and/or cover topics which are group-neutral. For them to leave their (completely ugly no less) template on these pages is borderline spam, and completely inappropriate.

The page list:

The goal of this case? To have the template removed from the above pages and to have the group barred from placing it in inappropriate places in future. --HAHAHA DISREGARD THAT, I SUCK COCKS 06:29, 11 October 2008 (BST)

How can you circlejerk with only two people?--xoxo 06:30, 11 October 2008 (BST)
By being very, very good at it. --HAHAHA DISREGARD THAT, I SUCK COCKS 06:32, 11 October 2008 (BST)
Oh I think he's including our fanclub.--Nallan (Talk) 06:35, 11 October 2008 (BST)

I just hit save page on my post about this. Damn, you guys are quick.--– Nubis NWO 06:32, 11 October 2008 (BST)

FYI - this is very close to the DMZ case and they lost. Just something to think about.--– Nubis NWO 06:32, 11 October 2008 (BST)
Can you link to that case? --HAHAHA DISREGARD THAT, I SUCK COCKS 06:37, 11 October 2008 (BST)
It wasn't so much an arbies case but an [SA vs DHPD flame war] on the DH talk page. A few sysops stepped in and did agree that the DMZ category on every thing was excessive.* It's hard (but amusing) to get to the meat of the issue through the bitching, but TL;DR version is that DHPD had the DMZ tag on things not in DH, the sysops said that wasn't "fair" and that no other group was allowed to do that (the Dead had members banned when they made the City of the Dead category), the tags were removed and I think a page about the DMZ was added under DH space and brief mentions of it were allowed on certain pages. I really do try to "move on" from SA vs DH drama. --– Nubis NWO 06:50, 11 October 2008 (BST)
This is the original DMZ concern] brought up by AHLG.--– Nubis NWO 06:56, 11 October 2008 (BST)

Despite the recent attack of the oh-so-clevers by 2 Cool this case is pressing ahead regardless. --HAHAHA DISREGARD THAT, I SUCK COCKS 06:50, 11 October 2008 (BST)

I'm sorry but i don't understand what you want. Not only do those pages directly relate to alim (they were created as offshoots of it) but they are now housed as subpages. What is your concern? --xoxo 06:55, 11 October 2008 (BST)
The fact that I'm almost certain that you're lying about more than one of those pages having been created as part of ALiM. --HAHAHA DISREGARD THAT, I SUCK COCKS 06:58, 11 October 2008 (BST)
You started an arbies case because your "almost certain" about something? Wow. No all of these were created by Jed and nick to enhance ALiM, I'm ACTUALLY certain about that.--CyberRead240 07:00, 11 October 2008 (BST)
No, my being "almost certain" was irrelevant until the pages were moved to the ALiM namespace. --HAHAHA DISREGARD THAT, I SUCK COCKS 07:01, 11 October 2008 (BST)
Well that's fucking A bob, but they were all created by Nick and I. I'll do a timeline for you. August 07 - 2 Cool created, October 07 - ALiM created, the months between then and now - all those small side projects created. Comprendé? Some of them have been edited by mulitple people, some by just Nick and/or I. The point is all the basic ideas for the pages come from 2 Cool and the team over at ALiM, and further almost all those pages are integrally related to ALiM and a number of it's locations. Hence the navbar and hence they are now subpages there. Stop saying random shit you are almost certain of (and entirely wrong about) and tell me what the fuck you want from this arby case now the situation has changed.--xoxo 07:07, 11 October 2008 (BST)
There is no fucking way the Great Fire page (at least) has been around for such a short period of time. GTFO. --HAHAHA DISREGARD THAT, I SUCK COCKS 07:08, 11 October 2008 (BST)

I have no clue where to respond to any of this, but since my concern is trying to head off arbies (until we can get it fixed) then I will reply here. When I suggested moving the pages to subpages I meant future ones. The problem now is that ALiM effectively "owns" these "historical " pages. I swear the Great Fire one has been around for a while... Bob, what do you want as an outcome for this? I don't quite see where you are going with this. Help me out.--– Nubis NWO 07:04, 11 October 2008 (BST)

The ones they actually created can stay where they are. The ones they didn't (Great Fire probably being the only one in this category actually) need to be moved back where they belong. --HAHAHA DISREGARD THAT, I SUCK COCKS 07:07, 11 October 2008 (BST)
Nubis, I can assure you, these were all created by Nick and Jed. I don't know if they were intended to tie them in with ALiM at the time of their creation, but eventually they all did, and they all flourished from there.--CyberRead240 07:05, 11 October 2008 (BST)
Great Fire has been around for awhile, my guess would be janurary or so. But it is certified 2 Cool created, i guarantee it.--xoxo 07:08, 11 October 2008 (BST)
I made the Great Fire pages. There was a deletions case over it.--Nallan (Talk) 07:09, 11 October 2008 (BST)
I'm looking through the Deletions archive and I'm not seeing it. Mind pointing me in the right direction? --HAHAHA DISREGARD THAT, I SUCK COCKS 07:16, 11 October 2008 (BST)
here It was about the category, doesn't prove anything, but it shows the whole "wiki vs 2cool" thing.--CyberRead240 07:17, 11 October 2008 (BST)
That has absolutely nothing to do with anything we're talking about whatsoever. I'm laughing at you for thinking it does, as the words "2 Cool" are not mentioned anywhere. Not once. --HAHAHA DISREGARD THAT, I SUCK COCKS 07:20, 11 October 2008 (BST)
It's your word against that of people who have no real emotional involvement in this case (I actually don't, believe it or not; as far as my personal emotions go I couldn't care less about the outcome of this case) without any hard proof either way. If you can't produce any of said proof I suggest you cram it and nominate acceptable arbitrators. --HAHAHA DISREGARD THAT, I SUCK COCKS 07:12, 11 October 2008 (BST)
I did find the deletions case here. From April at least. Can we do this: can we move back the great fire one (since it seems to honestly be the oldest and most linked) and come up with a smaller more focused nav template for it? Then in future you can make the other pages in your space and have whatever template you want.
The main reason I ask for this considerable compromise from the ALiM guys on the Great Fire is because it is a great portal into ALiM since almost any page in Malton can link to the Great Fire. If you compromise and put that one back with a more "neutral" template/links you may get more vistors to your project because of it.--– Nubis NWO 07:19, 11 October 2008 (BST)
I... suppose I would be willing to compromise on that front as long as the new template was strictly neutral. --HAHAHA DISREGARD THAT, I SUCK COCKS 07:21, 11 October 2008 (BST)
We're discussing... And just for the record, I have people who can (hopefully) back me up as creator of that page, for instance Ros or User:Saromu. They'd remember posting on the talk page at the time.--Nallan (Talk) 07:23, 11 October 2008 (BST)
Personally, I hope that 2cool don't "compromise". They created the page for their own lulz and fostered it into its current existance. They shouldn't have to compromise with anyone.--CyberRead240 07:26, 11 October 2008 (BST)
They've already been more or less forced to move pages into their namespace. --HAHAHA DISREGARD THAT, I SUCK COCKS 07:27, 11 October 2008 (BST)
It's simple - if they didn't move the pages to their name space then they were spamming the ALiM stuff (see DMZ). By moving the pages they can have whatever they want on it, however, if they start spamming links to the pages elsewhere then we will have an issue. --– Nubis NWO 07:34, 11 October 2008 (BST)
No, they wanted to have it in the ALiM name space from day one, they regretted that they didn't. But you can feel big for just one moment bob, congrats on your win ;)--CyberRead240 07:29, 11 October 2008 (BST)
Uh... what? They can't have regretted it all that much; it isn't like they haven't had nearly a year to fix it. --HAHAHA DISREGARD THAT, I SUCK COCKS 07:34, 11 October 2008 (BST)
I wouldn't say regret, but i've always felt they would be better of as ALiM subpages, i just never cared that much and neither did anyone else - until now.--xoxo 07:38, 11 October 2008 (BST)
I'm not even sure how it go to this but it is totally irrelevant at any rate. We moved those pages to subpages of ALiM because bob was concerned that we were spamming the alim template on non alim stuff. By moving them there and then explaining the number of ways the pages were related to alim this should no longer be an issue. While no one can definatively prove who created the great fire page (sigh, thanks kev) i suggest you ask wan, boxy, karek etc who have all been involved with 2 Cool stuff and might remember it. I'm not sure who you think i would lie about this...--xoxo 07:24, 11 October 2008 (BST)
Great, before you were willing to compromise but now you magically aren't? Yippee. Nubis' suggestion has nothing to do with who made the page, you'll note. --HAHAHA DISREGARD THAT, I SUCK COCKS 07:26, 11 October 2008 (BST)
Talk:Amusing Locations in Malton/Great Fire of 1912 - that is direct copy pasted from the old talk, check the histories there if you don't beleive it. It clear shows Nallan as the first editor of that page and also other users referring to us when editing the page. While i can't prove we created the page i can show you that we were seen even back in Feb and Apr as the operators of the page. My compromise extends as far as making the template substantially less intrusive and moving the pages to be alim subpages, i'm halfway through achieving these goals.--xoxo 07:28, 11 October 2008 (BST)
We aren't arguing ownership, we are asking for compromise on the template and asking that the most known page be put back (which would be in your best interest anyway like I said above) --– Nubis NWO 07:30, 11 October 2008 (BST)
They've already been more or less forced to move pages into their namespace. --HAHAHA DISREGARD THAT, I SUCK COCKS 07:27, 11 October 2008 (BST)

Sorry, "we"? Thats wonderful that you have outlined what you want, but they created the page, if they want to do it, they can, if they don't, case closed and move on.--CyberRead240 07:32, 11 October 2008 (BST)

Yes, "we", Nubis and I are arguing more or less the same thing. --HAHAHA DISREGARD THAT, I SUCK COCKS 07:34, 11 October 2008 (BST)
Actually bob is arguing that that page has been around for longer, which is offensive and undermines our argument that these pages are largely run by us and associated with ALiM, hence determining that is important. The old pages are now redirects which should have no influence on through traffic.--xoxo 07:34, 11 October 2008 (BST)
The age of the page and the length of time it spent not under the auspices of ALiM have not embedded it in people's minds as something that should be group-oriented. By leaving it out of your namespace and putting a more unobtrusive and neutral template on it you will attract far less ire. --HAHAHA DISREGARD THAT, I SUCK COCKS 07:39, 11 October 2008 (BST)
Ok, try and comprehend this, extra chromosome or not, just try and comprehend this. Every page on that Navbar, was created by Nick and Jed, as part of the ALiM Wikiproject. So it has ALWAYS been part of ALiM.--CyberRead240 07:43, 11 October 2008 (BST)
har har har aneuploidy joke har har har --HAHAHA DISREGARD THAT, I SUCK COCKS 07:46, 11 October 2008 (BST)
so you understand then, good. I'm glad.--CyberRead240 07:48, 11 October 2008 (BST)
I don't know what ire is, and i'm not too sure i care about how much i attract. Neither am i all that concerned with whether or not people feel it is group orientated, the navbar has been there long enough and during that time the page has more of less function as an ALiM subpage. Not to mention that almost all the redirects come from ALiM locations that ALiM editors have added in. Thus traffic to the page comes mainly through ALiM stuff, and the cycle of life continues.--xoxo 07:41, 11 October 2008 (BST)

Current Situation

You moved a page from the main space via a redirect to your space. It wasn't a group page, but rather an article. That could be seen as vandalism. The core issue is this: if a page is in the main space but a part of the ALiM it can't be spammed with that large template. Period. Since we can't prove exact ownership of the page and the fact that it was in the main space for so long it's very questionable that you choose now to move it. This will all go away by putting the Great Fire back with a more neutral template. Not saying you need to get rid of the template completely or move the others back, but that is the one page causing most of the problems. It's because it seems to be the oldest and most known. The main issue has only been over the size and placement of the nav template. (that's what caught my attention before all of this started, by the way) --– Nubis NWO 07:58, 11 October 2008 (BST)

Thank you. That was all getting rather confusing. --HAHAHA DISREGARD THAT, I SUCK COCKS 07:59, 11 October 2008 (BST)
The nav template will change, see my talk page. Also, please wait for people who were around at the early days of the Great Fire and can testify that it was 2 Cool created. We have already said we created it, and quite frankly considering we have been fully honest regarding this entire case, you should have no reason to doubt that. Putting the great fire back would be splitting up the various ALiM related fictional story pages when clearly they should all be grouped together.--xoxo 08:01, 11 October 2008 (BST)
I think if we can provide witnesses this should be open/shut. Can you wait that long?--Nallan (Talk) 08:03, 11 October 2008 (BST)
Have you taken him home to meet mum yet, bob?
Nubis, you can't prove ownership. You are right, but mostly all the signs point towards Jed and Nick creating this page. There is more evidence pointing to that than anything else. Either, you leave it alone and let Jed and Nick do whatever they want with their page, or you ask them nicely to try out your method of spicing up the page. You tell them you like their literary talents, and you find the page very convincing, you compliment them on their job well done, and you try your best to change their opinion on what they should do. It is their page, you should be asking them nicely, not telling them what to do.--CyberRead240 08:08, 11 October 2008 (BST)
Where am I telling them what to do? I've been asking for a compromise all along. I've told them what the situation looks like from the outside. And I did tell them the page is rather well known and would be a great portal/ad for their project. But thank you for your timely advice, Mike.
(edit conflicted from before) Thank you for seeing to the nav concerns. I understand your side in regards to keeping your ALiM stories together, but let's be honest. This is a wiki. It's a matter of a link on a page.
About witnesses, if you can find actual links in their contribs or something that substantial that would be great, otherwise it is just one person's word against anothers, you know? I would hope that you would be flattered that this particular article would be so well known! I hope this is worked out for both sides.--– Nubis NWO 08:11, 11 October 2008 (BST)
Its Michael, thanks, Nub.--CyberRead240 08:14, 11 October 2008 (BST)
Oh of course, we're very flattered, but also at the same time insulted that anyone could doubt we created it. I'll get to work on those contribs.--Nallan (Talk) 08:17, 11 October 2008 (BST)
Have you not been paying attention whatsoever? Nobody is currently doubting that you created the page; all Nubis and I are doing is making a suggestion that would harmonise the Great Fire page's image and its format. --HAHAHA DISREGARD THAT, I SUCK COCKS 08:20, 11 October 2008 (BST)
I call Bullshit! You threatened arbies over it, unless you don't think we created the page on what grounds would you attempt to convince an impartial adjudicator that we must relocate the page?--xoxo 08:25, 11 October 2008 (BST)
Hence the word currently, dipshit. lrn2read --HAHAHA DISREGARD THAT, I SUCK COCKS 08:26, 11 October 2008 (BST)
Well if you don't want an arbitration case please keep your pathetic begging off this page.--xoxo 08:27, 11 October 2008 (BST)
Your consistent misunderstanding of where I'm now coming from is hilariously sad. My argument is that with the image most people have in their minds of the Great Fire page it would be prudent of you to move it back to the public namespace and put a more low-key template on it. I'm not disputing who owns it - and haven't been for some time, you pathetic excuse for intelligence. --HAHAHA DISREGARD THAT, I SUCK COCKS 08:31, 11 October 2008 (BST)
wat....so this is your story until it is proved wrong, then once that happens, you will change it and litter your comments with insults? Excellent.--CyberRead240 08:35, 11 October 2008 (BST)
Mate i can take all the insults you can hurl at me, keep em coming, but get them off this page. Because no matter what you think would be prudent of me to do, it has nothing to do with arbitration. Unless you are suggestion we get an impartial adjudicator to also make suggestions of what i might perhaps be interested in doing? To me that just seems silly. --xoxo 08:38, 11 October 2008 (BST)
Okay, so would you be happy if the great fire page was moved back to Great Fire of 1912, however remained with the ALiM template in it's new slimline format (anyone with coding skills interested in helping out that'd be appreciated) and apart from the fact that the page is not in the ALiM namespace would be identical in it's format to the other ALiM subpages and would continue to largely fall under the jurisdiction of the ALiM team? And while yes, i am proud (and somewhat taken a back) that you feel the Great Fire page is as ancient as the wiki, i'm more concerned that you seem unwilling to accept that we did indeed make it and that we feel the ALiM navbar is an integral part of the page.--xoxo 08:17, 11 October 2008 (BST)
I'd be cool with that. (for the record, I do believe you guys - or someone with you - made it, but I can't just go OK. I sort of should at least ask for proof, ya know?) ALso, I posted a potential idea for a nav template on your page.--– Nubis NWO 08:25, 11 October 2008 (BST)
And just for the record, you are clear on what I mean about spamming pages with the nav. temp. and why I stepped in? Just make any future pages in your space and we'll probably never have this issue again. --– Nubis NWO 08:29, 11 October 2008 (BST)
Funny that you should be trying to pull that insult, Michael. You've been arguing 2 Cool's point for them everywhere the argument has even looked like it's taking place - in many cases more strenuously than they have. I suggest you retract that line of attack before you make yourself look like even more silly. --HAHAHA DISREGARD THAT, I SUCK COCKS 08:20, 11 October 2008 (BST)
Not arguing for them, arguing against you. But lolk ill stay out of stuff if its giving you difficulty :)--CyberRead240 08:22, 11 October 2008 (BST)
Sorry, but that's one of the shittiest attempts to twist out of an accusation I've ever seen. Not going to fly, sorry. --HAHAHA DISREGARD THAT, I SUCK COCKS 08:25, 11 October 2008 (BST)
Oh your a talented wordsmith if I ever did see one.--CyberRead240 08:26, 11 October 2008 (BST)
Such a shame you aren't. --HAHAHA DISREGARD THAT, I SUCK COCKS 08:34, 11 October 2008 (BST)
Hey look it's Bob. And he still remembers how to troll people. What a shocker.--Kristi of the Dead 08:45, 11 October 2008 (BST)

I'll arbitrate. Looks interesting. DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 08:30, 11 October 2008 (BST)

Uhhh, I think I already did... :) --– Nubis NWO 08:32, 11 October 2008 (BST)

St. Iscariot vs. Cheese

This is a case over the ruling in the Jorm/Zeug case. Cheese has exceeded his remit as arbitrator in this case by ordering the circumvention of established wiki procedure.

I wish to have sections of his ruling stricken and declared unenforceable.

I will accept any arbitrator who has shown an understanding for following established wiki policy and procedure in their edit history. -- To know the face of God is to know madness....Praise knowledge! Mischief! Mayhem! The Rogues Gallery!. <== DDR Approved Editor 10:15, 30 September 2008 (BST)

I can has arby? --HAHAHA DISREGARD THAT, I SUCK COCKS 23:38, 30 September 2008 (BST)

I accept Bob. He has long shown that he follows wiki policy and procedure to the letter. -- Cheese 23:39, 30 September 2008 (BST)
My indiscretions are by choice, not by lack of knowledge. You'll also note that I was more than courteous and impartial in my previous case. I take being an arbitrator seriously. --HAHAHA DISREGARD THAT, I SUCK COCKS 00:31, 1 October 2008 (BST)

Seriously though, I think this case is one of the most moronic that has ever been brought. Iscariot basically wants my ruling stricken so that a deleted page can be restored just to be deleted again next week. This is stupid and a waste of time on everyone's part. I refuse to play any part in this. -- Cheese 00:16, 1 October 2008 (BST)

Then the arby ruling will happen without any input from you whatsoever. And if he finds an arbitrator sympathetic to his side, he'll get what he wants, thus just wasting more time when the page gets re-deleted. If he's serious, go along, or find representation. You should know all of this. Save others time by sacrificing a little to go with the case.-- dǝǝɥs oʇ ɯɐds: sʎɐʍ1ɐ! 00:28, 1 October 2008 (BST)
Fine. I still think this is moronic. But SA has a point. I will represent myself. Arbitrators who want in, please leave a note. -- Cheese 00:31, 1 October 2008 (BST)
Wait a minute. You can not arbitrate against someone that doesn't choose to participate in the arbitration. Then the arby ruling will happen without any input from you whatsoever. This is complete bullshit. If this was the case then I could go back and find either old pages that the users have "abandoned" or for that matter users that aren't as active these days and set up cases against them, pick my buddy to arby, and get whatever I wanted done. Arbies has to have BOTH parties involved and if Cheese refuses to participate then he can not be forced to. Arbies is an option not required for conflict resolution. --– Nubis NWO 13:55, 1 October 2008 (BST)
Shhh, don't tell the peoplez da truth!-- dǝǝɥs oʇ ɯɐds: sʎɐʍ1ɐ! 00:39, 2 October 2008 (BST)
Actually the rules say an Arbies case can be made without participation of the other side.... however there s no point doing so as without their agreement to enter the process there s no way to make them accept the outcome! --Honestmistake 02:30, 2 October 2008 (BST)
And that loophole right there is the crux of what is fucking wrong with this wiki. That needs to be closed up. --– Nubis NWO 03:09, 2 October 2008 (BST)
You're wrong, sorry. --HAHAHA DISREGARD THAT, I SUCK COCKS 14:12, 1 October 2008 (BST)
It's not really a loophole though is it? You can't force someone to accept arbitration, it goes totally counter to the meaning of the word! Perhaps a seperate procedure for such cases might work but that would really be a case of asking for judgement rather than a negotiated settlement and there is no way that the person bringing such a case should have any control over who rules on it... Hell such a thing should probably be open to public vote like deletions is!--Honestmistake 14:24, 3 October 2008 (BST)
Actually it's probably a good chance to clarify established wiki procedure and underline where Arbitration fits on this wiki. If deletions can be forced through by 'popular' vote (ie meatpuppets) without recourse to arbitration then it's anarchy, a good example is wan's direct recourse to deletion twice now with both the original UZM and its redirect. As it is the deletions vote is an easy bad faith way of not bothering with arbitration. As for your ruling being 'unenforceable' ... well it came to the same conclusion as wan's delete request, Iscariot's vote and upheld jorm's request for deletion! It doesn't override or circumvent but rather concurs. It would be enforceable after the vote cos even if the Keep's won the day I would have requested speedy deletion as per your ruling. Finally, as original author I changed my vote to speedy delete and isn't that justification in itself for speedy deletion (criteria #7 Author Edit Only)? Isn't there a procedure to deal with litigious members on this wiki? They're generally a huge waste of time otherwise. --Zeug 07:42, 1 October 2008 (BST)
Quit your whining, and quit trying to play the victim. No one buys it. You started this problem, and you escalated it. Time and time again, repeatedly. By refusing to refusing to allow groups them to edit themselves from a public, community page they wanted nothing to do with. You are the one who caused the friction and drama: this is fallout from a situation you started, fomented and perpetuated. You know it. I know it. Everyone else knows it.
But anyway... We apologise for this interruption, and return you now to your regularly scheduled programming: Zeug's usual arguments ad hominen, facile dissemblings and assorted "other general whinging". --WanYao 08:36, 1 October 2008 (BST)
Shhhh ... it's OK wan. I'm sure everybody understands your pain and we're all here for you buddy. And don't worry, even with 4 v/b's, 2 deletions and an arbi case called against me over the last few days I can assure you I feel in no way victimized. Quite the opposite, I love the wiki process and I love UD and its social network. And with this case maybe we can put a brake on meatpuppet attacks in the deletions vote.--Zeug 12:40, 1 October 2008 (BST)

I'll arbitrate, but you should know that arbitration has a long history of ordering deletions, and frankly, if a decent, impartial arbitrator orders it (as seems to have happened in this case), it is a better system than internet democracy because the decision is made by someone who has all the relevant facts, as presented by the parties involved -- boxy talk • i 10:23 1 October 2008 (BST)

I do not accept Bob, for obvious reasons, and will not accept Boxy due to his sysop status. -- To know the face of God is to know madness....Praise knowledge! Mischief! Mayhem! The Rogues Gallery!. <== DDR Approved Editor 11:49, 3 October 2008 (BST)

why must you hurt my feelings when i can obviously be imapartial when I arbitrate --HAHAHA DISREGARD THAT, I SUCK COCKS 16:07, 3 October 2008 (BST)

Arbitration Cases in Progress

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.



There are currently no cases under consideration

Umbrella Biohazard Countermeasure Servive vs. Umbrella

Involved Users Haliman versus MisterGame
Arbitrator Cheese
Created 23:22, 30 September 2008 (BST) by Haliman
Status Awaiting Opening Statements
Summary A dispute over the ownership of the Umbrella Biohazard Countermeasure Service page.


Iscariot and The Order of Philosophe Knights versus Sarah Aline and The Upper Left Corner

Involved Users Iscariot versus Sarah Aline
Arbitrator J3D
Created 17:38, 4 September 2008 (BST) by Iscariot
Status Awaiting Iscariot's case
Summary Dispute over the content of the Southall Mansion location page.


Jorm and the MOB versus Zeug and Extinction

Involved Users Jorm versus Zeug
Arbitrator Cheese
Created 21:32, 22 September 2008 by Jorm
Status Waiting for terms of the ruling to be accepted and carried out.
Summary Jorm wants all references to the MOB removed from Zeug's United Zombies of Malton portal and from aforementioned portal's wiki page.


Archives

Retrieved from "http://wiki.urbandead.com//index.php?title=UDWiki:Administration/Arbitration&oldid=1292039"