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 (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.

Volunteer Arbitrators in Alphabetical Order

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. --RosslessnessWant 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)
It didn't, because at the top of the page, the page we use more as a guideline and rule book for arbies, it still said others can and will be forced into arbies if the need arises.--Mr. Angel, Help needed? 21:14, 8 June 2009 (BST)
Precedent and common sense are against you here SA, he is entirely within his rights to refuse any arbitration if he feels there is no need for it and this has been proven may times (by Grim on at least 2 or 3 occasions for starters) In any event the resolution can only binding if you accept arbitration or it wouldn't be called arbitration... perhaps what you are looking for is a trial by peers (or combat) --Honestmistake 00:22, 9 June 2009 (BST)
And i just found a flaw on SA line of thought. Heh.
In assisting in Arbitration, we generally suggest that both parties agree to the Arbitration. This is not [..] a requirement, but we do require that both parties be represented in proceedings.
Genereally suggest and not a requirement imply that the user is free to choose if he wants to accept the arbitration or not. And the final bit simply state the user can accept arbitration, yet have someone else representing him during the proccedings. --People's Commissar Hagnat [talk] [wcdz] 00:29, 9 June 2009 (BST)
Right then. SA, how about you make it explicitly clear to Thad that if he edits in your namespace again, you'll take him to A/VB for vandalism. That's essentially what you want out of this arby, and if you make your wishes explicit and those wishes are within your rights (your namespace), and he breaks them, I could see you winning an A/VB case against Thad. No arby required, even if you can't get him to agree to one. --Bob Boberton TF / DW 00:54, 9 June 2009 (BST)
No Hag, what that line means is that if the other user doesn't agree, we'll just have someone chosen to represent them, the arbitration goes on, and the other user is screwed. Your understanding of the English language is lacking. Instead of trying to turn a system that currently is fine as it is into a system that will be rendered useless, try concentrating on the important things. Like making a system for personality conflicts, like this one, and edit disputes. I have precedence on my side (Various restraining orders place upon parties, like with Akule and the Fifth Horseman). This is a simple issue that is afforded to me by user space rights. I don't want "Well just tell him to stay away" or "Well threaten him". If I threaten him, it won't have any grounds because nothing went through fucking arbies. If I tell him to stay away, he'll still be able to post any time he wants. A simple arbitration would fix all these problems. And it doesn't help with Hagnat trying to wikilawyer (And failing, Imight add) what he wants, and then stealth changing guidelines and rules, and modifying the way we do things around here. When he's not a sysops. When there wasn't any consent. I want a simple arbitration case, and I will proceed with it whether Hag's, or Mistergame like it or not.--Mr. Angel, Help needed? 01:11, 9 June 2009 (BST)
Wow. You sound like Iscariot now. Not only you are putting your hand over your ears and yelling 'lalalalayouarewronglalalaimarightlalala', but you are also accusing me of stealth editing guidelines... which my recent move simply made it EASIER to pinpoint any changes made to the guidelines. What next, you accusing me of abusing my trusted powers for my own agenda ? oh, wait, i dont have them anymore... you do, and you just used to protect the abirtation guidelines pages (pages i created and edited) to fit *YOUR* agenda... hum. --People's Commissar Hagnat [talk] [wcdz] 01:26, 9 June 2009 (BST)
And btw, the arbitration system is *NOT* working fine. It never did. Specially with people using it to solve their own personal disputes in juvenile fashion like you are doing now. --People's Commissar Hagnat [talk] [wcdz] 01:29, 9 June 2009 (BST)
Considering in your "move" of the page guidelines into a template, you removed a part that has been there since god knows how long? Yeah. I consider that stealth editing hagnat. Especially considering there was no god damned discussion about wanting Iscariot's edit. Yes, I protected them, because yet again you're throwing the god damned rule book out the window, because you like doing things your way and god help you if some pesky red tape gets in the way amirite? Hagnat, please refrain from editing this case, as you have not offered to arbitrate, and are doing nothing but shitting my case up with your incorrect bullshit. And I also reject you as arbitrator if you think about offering to be a douche. :) --Mr. Angel, Help needed? 01:33, 9 June 2009 (BST)
Since the arbitraion guidelines i wrote in january apparently has no weight since it never passed through community discussion, there is nothing forbidding me from editing your arbie case, SA. And you call it incorrect bulsshit, but honestmistake comment above seems to agree with me, and so does several users in other cases (which were not archived because they were not accepted, oh bummer) --People's Commissar Hagnat [talk] [wcdz] 01:48, 9 June 2009 (BST)
Sorry Hagnat but trying to guilt-trip SA into allowing your edits to go through is not going to work when those edits were made without any sort of discussion. I'm actually glad you aren't a sysop anymore because your level of self-entitlement is terrifying. You don't get to unilaterally make those kinds of judgement calls - you got misconducted for it a shitload of times and now you're leaving yourself open to vandalism cases. --Cyberbob 01:35, 9 June 2009 (BST)
so speaks the troll who thinks its people enough to get his sysop powers.... fyi, I could only get misconducted if i abused any sysop powers. Since all these edits were made with me as a user, i find it highly doubtful that it could be seen as misconduct in any way. --People's Commissar Hagnat [talk] [wcdz] 01:48, 9 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