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
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 Currently Under Consideration

Midianian vs. Karek

This is about the protection request where I requested that the individual CSS styles creating the rounded corners on certain pages be replaced with a template, which was done by Cheese, but later reverted by Karek. We discussed it on the protections page, but didn't reach an agreement. Finally he moved the request from Requested Edits to Recent Actions when I suggested we go to arbitration to settle this.

The pages in the original request were:

but I don't really mind if the template isn't edited into the first two pages, for reasons explained in the protections request.

Since this is mainly a technical matter, please do not put your name forward unless you have at least basic understanding of the technical basis of this case. --Midianian|T|DS|C:RCS| 20:28, 21 October 2008 (BST)

Suggestions is the third most viewed page on the wiki and is a significant through-fare for wiki traffic(the others don't show up on popular pages because they're categories but they get a significant amount of views as well, enough that they would show up top 20 if they could). The fact that they mostly have "templated sigs", as you say, is actually that much more reason why space there is an issue, inclusion size problems would screw up the page and this template adds to the inclusion size needlessly.--Karekmaps?! 02:35, 22 October 2008 (BST)

I'll be willing to arbitrate on this matter as I'm a technically orientated person. I also have experience with the Wiki Software as well as CSS. - Jedaz - 02:48/22/10/2008


I don't understand why Midianian thinks there is an arbitration case here. It is called a request not a demand. Should the sysop team not feel it is needed it won't be honored. If Cheese and Karek do not agree on what needs to be done with the request since they are the only two sysops that are involved they might need an arbitration (or discussion) but frankly, Midianian has no right to demand any action on this matter.--– Nubis NWO 02:51, 22 October 2008 (BST)

This is the essence of arbitration, resolving edit disputes, which is exactly what this is. Just because Midianian has to request a sysop to change the page does not mean that Midianian is not an invested party, and thus has every right to request arbitration for resolving the edit dispute. I fail to see how you can not see that this is clearly an edit dispute. If the whole Sysop team disagrees with the request then no arbitration case could even get it changed (obviously). - Jedaz - 03:07/22/10/2008

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)

I'm somewhat new to Arbies, having only added myself recently, but I'd be willing.--Drawde Talk To Me! DORIS Яed Яum Defend Ridleybonk! I know Nothing! 20:06, 12 October 2008 (BST)

I also offer to arby. --Haliman - Talk 16:28, 13 October 2008 (BST)

Arbitration Cases in Progress

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=1300328"