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

Kristi of the Dead vs. Recruitment

Either you lot drop this stupid anti DEM policy about how we advertise or I want everyone that's in an organization in any capacity to be lumped together on one page how we are. That means everyone in the DA has to be on one page and everyone in the NMC and Beerhah as well. Either that or you let the DEM advertise like all these other organizations get to. I'm looking for the MCDU and AH to have their own pages. That's not so much to ask is it? I mean the Philosophe Knights get to put adds in both the PK sections and the Survivor sections. So I mean your bias against us must not have anything to do with taking up space. I can't really write Wiki policy very well and since you guys put us in this situation without ever talking to us first I'm taking the wiki to arby's.--Kristi of the Dead 01:54, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, first off, you need someone to represent "Recruitment." Perhaps a discussion at the Recruitment talk page would be in order? Anyway, I'll post a note there, even though I think this is the wrong place. Linkthewindow  Talk  05:23, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Whoops, looks like there has been quite a heated discussion there for some time. Anyway, Kirsti, how are you supposed to challange, you know a page. Arbies are designed for user-user mediation, not when people get upset over the contents on a page (unless said upsetness causes an edit war.) Linkthewindow  Talk  05:31, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
I'm charging the entire wiki that supports the use of the recruitment page as it is written now. The unfair treatment of groups based on a policy that is selectively enforced by the wiki at large is unfair and deserves a resolution.--Kristi of the Dead 06:04, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
You can't take the whole wiki to arbies, Kristi. Name the main ones enforcing this on the recruitment page (and they can choose one or more representative/s), pick an independent arbitrator, and then move on to making your cases -- boxy talk • teh rulz 00:40 20 November 2008 (BST)
Iscariot is the do nothing in charge of that page. Good luck getting him to do anything.--Kristi of the Dead 03:24, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
This isn't exactly what I meant. Anyway, the question that needs to be addressed is where to draw the line on what is an individual group. The thing that's the major sticking point would probably be the fact that membership is interdependent in the DEM, the 3 character rule causes that and the secrecy of the group/s makes it very difficult to differentiate between them from the outside. That being said none of this would be an issue if the content rules were less rigid, there is no reason why the DEM shouldn't be able to include small ads for all of it's groups in it's recruitment ad but with the content limits now that is quite impossible. Maybe if we went back to an older system?--Karekmaps?! 06:53, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
We're looking to get the MCDU, and AH their own recruitment pages as well as any group that joins our organization from here on out. The point is either you enforce the rule fairly across the board with no more of this everyone is ok but the DEM crap or you let us have two new free pages 1 for AH and 1 for the MCDU (though in truth the made up problem of crowding on the recruitment page was designed to punish survivor groups like the DEM and the DHPD so I'd like to see it done away with entirely). By the letter of the rule there's plenty of organizations that should be forced to have one page but aren't this rule is selectively enforced and when it is enforced it is unfair and punishing to us. Because now when an organization joins the DEM they have to give up their ad. That's not fair and it's a penalty you've pushed on the DEM to the exclusion of all others here on the wiki. Also the 3 character rule has nothing to do with this...the DA has no alt rules at all and yet they're a ok to post as many recruitment ads as they want. And in fact I charge that it is the wiki that is responsible for much of the confusion with the DEM and its member groups. By forcing us all to advertise together you insinuate that we are not separate groups. It's easier for people to say that we aren't because of this unfair policy made for not so good faith reasons. --Kristi of the Dead 03:24, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
I don't enforce the rules there at all, it's a user made and user moderated page. I'm trying to help you out here by proposing something I think would be a more than appropriate compromise and would actually lead to all of your member groups having their recruitment ads group together with each other inside of a larger ad. That being said, if the DA is being allowed to do this and you aren't then there certainly is something wrong with that.--Karekmaps?! 17:37, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
I'm sorry Karek I didn't mean to insinuate that you did run the page sorry for that. I'm sorta used to us arguing about things and had assumed your opinion to be one way when it was the the other. Look I'm just after a fair resolution to this situation. Something that Iscariot has been unwilling or unable to do for whatever reason. But as the rule stands now the DEM is being unfairly targeted with this rule to the exclusion of all others. And there are plenty of other organizations that need to be forced to do the same thing we are but aren't being forced to do such. Mostly as a result of the real reason the rule was written in the first place combined with Iscariots inability to separate his PK character from his Wiki persona that rules the recruitment page. I like your idea Karek...anything that is more fair than the current system would be appreciated. The entire rule is biased against the DEM as was its purpose. It's not being enforced on others it seems it was a special rule made up to punish groups that want to join the DEM. Which is unfair. I want it gone, modified, or apply to all other organizations in the game.--Kristi of the Dead 02:59, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
Also, the alt rule is relevant only for the reason that it's a recruitment page, it would be foolish of you not to mention it considering that it would restrict whether or not some people could join the group at all. That makes it relevant but, just barely so. --Karekmaps?! 17:37, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
If they already have a DEM member in our group then they are already aware of the 3 alt rule and as such it doesn't really apply.--Kristi of the Dead 02:59, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

I've just noticed this case. My internets are broken at the moment so it'll be a while before I can properly begin it. However, as one of the two maintainers of the Recruitment page (the other having recently left the wiki) I will accept this case. I was going to recommend a friendly arbitration case to let a third party end the discussion, but since Kristi wants to get all legalistic and leave unfriendly messages on my talkpage, I will now take this case on in my usual wiki manner. I will represent the recruitment section and will participate fully in this debate on the following two conditions:

  1. The DEM is named in this case in place of Kristi and we understand that the ruling will apply to all members of the DEM, all subgroups of the DEM and their members.
  2. Arbitrator selection is put on hold until my interwebs are all fixed. -- To know the face of God is to know madness....Praise knowledge! Mischief! Mayhem! The Rogues Gallery!. <== DDR Approved Editor 10:48, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
Pffft. You've been little but hostile since the moment this discussion began months ago. And your paragraph #1 is rather a transparent attempt to use the interrelation of some DEM groups -- which by Kristi's petition are not even subject to this case -- to make a case for disallowing what she is asking for. If your internet access is a problem, perhaps Whitehouse should represent Recruitment in a truly "friendly arbitration case". -- Atticus Rex mfu pif Δ 17:01, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
EDIT: Great. Whitehouse really is gone. -- Atticus Rex mfu pif Δ 17:05, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
Wow surprise surprise Iscariot is out to do nothing yet again. How about while we're at it we vote this useless guy off the recruitment page entirely. You don't make the terms of the case Iscariot. In fact if you don't get off your ass we'll move on without you. I mean I've done nothing but ask you for help and in return I've gotten no response. I much prefer whitehouse to you as he actually does his job. If your internets is so spotty perhaps you should go back to being a normal user. In regards to you number 1 above This ruling should apply to the entire recruitment page not just to one ORGANIZATION and its member groups(ie not just the DEM). If it applies to the DEM then it should for fairness sake apply to all organizations such as the DA and others. That's the point no more of this "lets treat the DEM like crap because we can" stuff.--Kristi of the Dead 02:56, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
As it says above, Whitehouse has left the wiki. Any other people who would want to represent Recruitment in this case that you know of, Krisit? Linkthewindow  Talk  00:13, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

I am willing to be the arbitatortot and/or person in charge of wishing death upon Iscariot. Seriously, fuck off and die. If I ever met your mother I'd punch her in the ovaries until they turned into dust so that she could never poison the world again with a failspawn such as yourself. You're an idiot and a failure at a human being. Do everyone around you a favor and choke to death. --Sonny Corleone DORIS MSD pr0n 17:42, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Meh. I'll arbitrate. I hardly ever touch the recruitment page and have nothing against both users (or pages/groups.) However, both users should be advised that this would be my first case, so yeah... Linkthewindow  Talk  00:13, 22 November 2008 (UTC)


This case piqued my curiosity. I sneak on over to the recruitment page every now and again, and would neutrally apply logic and reason to the users involved in this case. As Linkthewindow, both Iscariot and Kristi should be advised that this would be my first arbitration. Ottari DA PDA NW Read the Dispatch! 06:34, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Iggles vs. MartyBanks

Posting non-NPOV in the Dunell Hills page Dunell_Hills#A_Brief_History_of_Dunell_Hills_After_the_Outbreak -- —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Iggles (talk • contribs) 12:45, November 11, 2008.

Sign next time. And wouldn't "non-NPOV" just be POV? Anyway. I'll be the Arbitatortot if you both agree. --Sonny Corleone DORIS MSD pr0n 19:46, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
I'll volunteer as well. -- Atticus Rex mfu pif Δ 20:12, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
Likewise. Have you informed Iggles of this? --RosslessnessWant a Location Image? 20:34, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
Isn't Iggles the one challenging? Someone should inform MartyBanks. Anyway, it's established community precedent to try to resolve this via non-arby means first. If this is a first-time offense, this isn't really worthy of an arby-it's not really a "dispute." I can't arby as I was in a similar disagreement over the Dulston danger status a few weeks ago with Iggles, so I would have a slight bias. Linkthewindow Talk MCM 20:55, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
Actually, a quick look at the Dunell Hills log looks like this was a short but busy edit war. At the same time though, has anyone tried to solve this by non-arby means? Taking this to arby is just a waste on the arbirator's time if it could be easily solved via peer-to-peer mediation (I solved my Dulson issue with Iggles that way before.) Linkthewindow Talk MCM 10:30, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
Oh yeah, the lack of signing did confuse me. Iggles should inform marty. he's the one pushing for arbies after all. --RosslessnessWant a Location Image? 20:59, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

I will also volunteer to arbitrate. I will inform the other party of this case. -- To know the face of God is to know madness....Praise knowledge! Mischief! Mayhem! The Rogues Gallery!. <== DDR Approved Editor 22:58, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Right...take Iscariot. Maybe he'll only report you once during the proceedings. --Sonny Corleone DORIS MSD pr0n 00:22, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm tossing my hat in. I don't have a hat. But you get the idea. -- Cheese 23:01, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Uh, Iggles, if you really are a member of the Dead then you should know better than take this to Arbys. The goon attitude is fuck the wiki. If you were a real goon you would just edit war, swear a lot, then make an MSPaint of Marty. I call fake. If this continues through Arby's the Dead disavow any knowledge of this Iggles person. --– Nubis NWO 02:35, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Generalising a bit there Nubis =P I will be arbie if anyone likes. DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 02:59, 12 November 2008 (UTC)


I do not have the time to be arguing semantics with my schedule; I will merely make my case quickly. The DHPD and the Dead have been fighting an epic battle in which each side has kicked some serious but; Now I can understand if a member of the Dead wishes to add their groups recent progress to the record; however the edit that Iggles made was not NPOV and was grammatical nightmare.

http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php?title=Dunell_Hills&action=history

The last time that the history section was edited in such a manner it began with a flame war throughout the Dunell suburb pages that resulted in both page improvements and page defacement to all affected pages. My stance is that if Iggles wants to make a change to the section he should do it in an NPOV manner and should at least try to write it well; WanYao did a lot of work with both the dead and our group to make a good NPOV history for Dunell Hills and I'd like to honor that by keeping it as neutral as possible. Before I had found out about the arbitration I had actually made an edit to add the new events and retain the NPOV and structure of the work. I hope that it is acceptable, if not I'll have to get someone else to participate in this case in place of myself.

Edit- As for who's arbitrating, I'm not sure of the rules for it but I personally would like someone who is neutral and with a record of fairness, perhaps Sonny Corleone, WanYao, Jorm, or Conndraka. --Marty Banks (aka. Mundane) <DHPD> 04:26, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

I'll represent DHPD for you, Marty. This is a stupid case and shouldn't go to arbies since we had a nice version worked out. Also, I'm pissed that he cut the line that I think I wrote. History isn't just what happened yesterday. The History section represented both sides well and didn't dismiss either sides' contribution to UD. --Globetrotters Icon.png #99 DCC 13:51, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
Marty, quick question, I'm going by this edit, what exactly is grammatically incorrect about that edit? Personally I'd add a single comma, but that's hardly what I'd describe as a 'grammatical nightmare'. -- To know the face of God is to know madness....Praise knowledge! Mischief! Mayhem! The Rogues Gallery!. <== DDR Approved Editor 04:37, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, both grammatical and linguistic... and yes, nightmare is a bit steep but it is the combination of the improperly written section and removal of a relevant NPOV assesment from WanYao... Read my edit in the newest revision see if that works and let it be noted that I did not make any editing or write anything new on the page until the last edit, That's all I got... Have a good one guys... --Marty Banks (aka. Mundane) <DHPD> 05:06, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Recusing myself as a semi-interested party, I'd do it but my impariality would be in question. Conndrakamod TAZM CFT 19:11, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

I offer to arbitrate. I don't know either of you, so that's the most neutral you can get.--Drawde Talk To Me! DORIS Яed Яum Defend Ridleybonk! I know Nothing! 21:29, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

This case looks like it died off. If not, please say so soon because I am going to archive it. --ZsL 23:08, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Arbitration Cases in Progress

There are currently no cases in Progress

Archives

Retrieved from "http://wiki.urbandead.com//index.php?title=UDWiki:Administration/Arbitration&oldid=1329447"