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

Active cases

Suicidalangel vs MisterGame

I simply want him banned from editing pages in my name space. Sure, I can remove and revert anything he does currently, but I want it to where he can not edit anything of mine at all. Shouldn't be too hard to get this done and over with. I'll pretty much accept any arbitrator, but would definitely prefer someone who will run through this quick and try to make it funneh, without damaging either party.--Mr. Angel, Help needed? 22:01, 7 June 2009 (BST)

Can I perhaps has arbitration as arbitrator? --Bob Boberton ^{TF / DW} 22:03, 7 June 2009 (BST)

You know, you could just ask me. Or make it clear in your rules (Like Izzy doesn't allow admin's). Still, this is a stupid idea. You are majorly responsible for moving and deleting my comments. How am I suppose to contact you then?--Thadeous Oakley 22:07, 7 June 2009 (BST)

Right. User:MisterGame is aware of the case. Do you want to discuss it between yourselves or want a formal arbitration? If its the second option, than thad must agree and confirm his choice of arbie. --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 22:11, 7 June 2009 (BST)

Go through someone else or pick some else to talk to. Izzy's rules aren't binding in anyway, we can break the rules wihtout them being Vandalism. I want mine binding. You are continuously a pest. I'm going through with this.--Mr. Angel, Help needed? 22:18, 7 June 2009 (BST)

Oh that's nice. Said sysop may edit or move, or otherwise mop my comments but I cannot discuss this with said sysop. The only way I am going to agree with this is if you leave any editing from me, malicious or not, alone and leaving it for other sysops.--Thadeous Oakley 22:24, 7 June 2009 (BST)

Y'see, here's the thing. I'd have no problem with you on my page if you'd follow what few rules I have. Your blink template gave me a head ache. For nothign. So I banned blink. That doesn't mean you don't have to sign properly, it means you use a different form of signing on my page.

And I'd have no problem with talking it out with you if you'd listen. Which you have proven in the last hour alone that you don't. You simply go ahead and do what ever you want at a given time. I said that I no longer wanted you on my page, what do you do? You post again. I told you not to shit up the main page? You do it again. I'm going to keep having to clean up your leftovers, but I don't want to deal with your stupidity on my talk page along with it.

Oh, and just so you know, even if you weren't banned, I'd still be able to ignore a comment on my page or simply remove it. The claim of unfairness that I can move your comments and you can't ask me about it stops there.--Mr. Angel, Help needed? 22:39, 7 June 2009 (BST)

I offer to arbitrate.-- Adward  15:17, 8 June 2009 (BST)

And as stated, I will practically accept any arbitrator, as this should be a fairly straightforward case. The problem is getting Thadeous to pick.--Mr. Angel, Help needed? 15:43, 8 June 2009 (BST)

He seems reasonably willing to cooperate SA, i don't think arbies is the best path to go down, i can't think of any cases where someones gone to arbies specifically to have someoneelse banned from editing their talk page and i think it should stay that way.--xoxo 16:02, 8 June 2009 (BST)

And you're wrong. It's happened multiple times, its actually why Iscariot can't take the admin team to A/VB or A/M, because he hasn't gotten it sanctioned by arbies. When I get home, if no one else has shown examples, I surely will.--Mr. Angel, Help needed? 16:06, 8 June 2009 (BST)

I think this would be one time when arbies is the best thing to do. We never use it because people are always trying to talk it out. That rarely works, so getting something that will be binding and enforceable is probably the right path.--SirArgo ^Talk 16:49, 8 June 2009 (BST)

If you can't deal with my "stupidity" then don't deal with me at all and leave me alone. It's my right to go into discussion with you. If you don't like my edits on the general wiki (not your talk page) , then you 1. Convince me to stop, 2. Take me to A/VB or 3. Leave the edits alone. You have always gone for option 1. What your proposing is none of these things. Next time you mop my edits, I'm suppose to accept that blindly?--Thadeous Oakley 16:32, 8 June 2009 (BST)

You're going to have to choose an arbitrator. If you don't SA will be able to choose for you. --Cyberbob 17:05, 8 June 2009 (BST)

Not true --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{[talk] [wcdz]} 20:13, 8 June 2009 (BST)

Truer than you think. At the top of this page "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."

Now, based upon that, we have yet another contradiction in this damn wiki. Why are they every where? And in this case, not just because it'd benefit me, we should honestly follow a forceful arbitration if it's needed. To deny it literally makes this entire system moot. Whats the point in having a system to settle shit if it doesn't work because we can all just sat no?--Mr. Angel, Help needed? 20:28, 8 June 2009 (BST)

Your quote is outdaded. I should have fixed that when i wrote the arbitration guidelines last year, my bad. The reason why arbitration does not work the way you want its because it was not built to solve personal issues like this. You are not supposed barge in here asking for a user to be forbidden to use your talk page (or any other page you own). Instead, you should use this place to find a way for you two to be able to work together in a constructive fashion. Barring both from talking to each other for a given time should be frowned upon, and only be the decision made by the arbitrator after every other means to solve the issue had failed. --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{[talk] [wcdz]} 20:37, 8 June 2009 (BST)

Your edits, along with Izzy's are not entirely valid to that page. There was no consensus by the entirety of the community to let you or others edit that page. You should not "fix" that problem based upon a rogue users edits. Arbitration is our method of dealing with disputes and being used as such. If you don't like it, tough. Write a policy instead of stealth editing shit. ;). But seriously, I'm well within my rights to ask for this.--Mr. Angel, Help needed? 20:41, 8 June 2009 (BST)

It become concensus when it was left un-edited for more than 15 monhts with a link in an administration page advising users to use said page as guideline. --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{[talk] [wcdz]} 21:11, 8 June 2009 (BST)

1) It's not your right. User name space rights and all. 2)It's hard to leave you alone when you not only come to my page and ask me stuff, but you also post inane and stupid things on the main page of a vandalism case you are not involved with. Not to mention you fuck things up and make me look misconductable when I'm not. We have that box at the beginning to make it easier to sort through the shit to find the details we need, and the rulings. I've asked you before to stop doing it, and you continue. Bob was the bringer of the case in that time, he was entirely allowed. You were not involved any any way. What I've tried to do is to get you to stop this shit without taking you to A/VB. Now that I don't want to keep wasting time on you, I'm going to go about my business, without having to hear you. That way your comments aren't shitting up the admin pages and the like, yet I don't have to try and explain to you time and time again why a lot of your edits are not welcome there. Oh, and 3) Yes, you are supposed to "accept it blindly" because even if this goes through for some reason and doesn't get you barred from editing my talk page, I still plan to remove and ignore every edit you make to my pages. The only thing this case does is make it to where I don't have to remove your comments because they won't be there.--Mr. Angel, Help needed? 19:58, 8 June 2009 (BST)

Recently Concluded cases

There are no recently concluded cases at this time.

Archives

• List of Arbitration Cases