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.

User:Haliman111 versus User:Lithedarkangel

The Umbrella Biohazard Containment Service page is in dispute. Lithedarkangel has been secretly pming members of the group to go to a new forum named The Drifters, and commence a coup. I have banned him from the UBCS forum and taken command of the UBCS. I want him, and all members of his renegade group barred from editing the page.

As you can see here, I am the original author of the page.

Here or here you can see I am still in charge of the original forum.

He admits here that the group has underwent a name change. If so, he can make a new page.

Our allies support us in this ordeal.

As an additional note, Li and I have agreed to represent our respective parties, with no interference from anyone else. --Haliman - Talk 02:58, 6 April 2010 (BST)

I accept Drawde, DDR, Misanthropy, or Rosslessness. --Haliman - Talk 03:02, 6 April 2010 (BST)

I offer to arbitrate this case.-- Adward  03:01, 6 April 2010 (BST)

I'll offer to arbitrate this case should there not be agreement on your original choices. Though I would remind you that you cannot bind someone to an arbitration that they do not represent themselves in or do not give their explicit permission to be represented by someone else in. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 03:09, 6 April 2010 (BST)

I see some lies in here. Alright I accept DDR, Misanthropy or Rosslessness. And I'm representing myself.--LithedarkangelMeth!^{The Great Meth Man} 03:57, 6 April 2010 (BST)

As ex leader of this group I volunteer to arbitrate and would rule neither of them wiki edits for the next 6 months as per the Umbrella Drama rule. -- 

•   Timmah!  

•   Talk  

05:41, 6 April 2010 (BST) This has the potential to be a very difficult case to arbitrate, since the conflict looks so deeply internal that Arbitration probably won't be able to solve the problem at all, but has such enormous potential to shape the result. As such, I don't think anyone you've specified (myself included) is actually qualified to arbitrate this case; in the ideal world it would be something achieved within the group. I'm not sure if I'm going to be able to do this one, I'll have to hastily give it some thought. Given you don't have the time for that, both others are definitely good choices. --

 

 

 

 

07:02, 6 April 2010 (BST)

I'm sorry, this will seem childish at best, but after everything we've been through I just can't control myself; HHHHAAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHHHHAAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHHHHAAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHHHHAAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHHHHAAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

HAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHHHHAAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHHHHAAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHa

The irony, please forgive me, but the irony is just, mind-blowing. This isn't a late April's fool or something? --Thadeous Oakley 13:13, 6 April 2010 (BST)

Also, while the chances that Haliman accepts me as arbitrator are about the same caliber as winning the lottery, ten times in a row, I offer to arbitrator. Like Colonel Krauser, I probably have more knowledge then the people Hal listed. Also DDR is right, this is a pretty deep internal conflict, though I guess ownership over the page is an issue. And honestly, explain me something; Last time I checked, Li(thedarkangel) was the leader of the group. He was in charge, and you Hal, stepped down. I don't know how you're organized internally but if Li was the leader, and you overthrew him, then you're the one who initiated a coup, not the other way around. --Thadeous Oakley 13:13, 6 April 2010 (BST)

You never pass on an opportunity to make an ass of yourself, do you? --Haliman - Talk 22:37, 6 April 2010 (BST)

Funny hearing that from you. If anything, the above case once again proves how you stop at nothing to preserve your self-interest above everything else. Especially considering Li, was like you're best fhrend on UD. I seriously feel for Li though, together with Megameh he at least had decency and honesty from what I saw in the past. You're a sad bastard D: Hate-mongering aside, I'll keep an eye out for this case, seems interesting enough. --Thadeous Oakley 23:42, 6 April 2010 (BST)

I am a bit sad to have to see this. Thadeous is right. I am the leader of the UBCS and most of our members can support me, Haliman has been missing some information. First He left the group and created the brotherhood of Nod. We at the UBCS have been since expanding into new games, a new perspective. We as a group made the decision it was best for ourselves to change the name of THE FORUM and have specific names for the games, i.e in UD we are the UBCS in other games we have other name. A public poll was made so all our members could vote and decide. The name with more votes was "The Drifters". We asked Haliman (the founder account) to change the url he said it was not possible, a lie or simply ignorance?, I don't know. But he was stopping what we decided as a group and then I as the leader of the UBCS decided to ask Haliman for his account (since he left) so I could change the name and all that. He refused to do it. So we at HC thought of a new plan: Move everyone to a new forum. We moved the important topics. Post by post. And just to be accurate I didn't secretly PM our members, I personally PMed every last active member, I sent messages in chat and lastly I sent a big massive email to everyone. And that is when Haliman appears and throws a coup at me. Banning me and the UBCS members. Sorry for long text.--LithedarkangelMeth!^{The Great Meth Man} 23:54, 6 April 2010 (BST)

I think understand what you're saying. Hmm, I think I'm gonna help you with this by making a summary.--Thadeous Oakley 00:30, 7 April 2010 (BST)

What Li means is this: The UBCS started playing different games besides UD under different names. In urbandead, they went by the name of UBCS, in another game by a different name etcetera. So Li decides to have all these different names bind under a single entity, called the Drifters. They would keep the different names to each individual game. So, in UD the Drifters would be remain to be known as UBCS, while another game they would be known as "X" etcetera. The Drifters would simply be a term to describe the collective of all individual game groups as a whole.

The forum name would be changed to the Drifters, since all the different games were organized on the same forum. This was all decided in a public poll over at their forum. However, for some reason, Haliman (meanwhile more or less absent) as forum creator and therefore root admin, refused to change the forum name because he somehow "couldn't". So the group decided to move to a new forum all together. Then Hal decides he disagrees, and bans Li and a couple from the original forum and initiates a coup. That about right?--Thadeous Oakley 00:30, 7 April 2010 (BST)

GTFO. No one wants your here. And I hate to be edit conflicted.--Haliman - Talk 00:33, 7 April 2010 (BST)

If by no one, you mean only yourself then yes, you're right. Otherwise I think I'm doing just fine here. --Thadeous Oakley 00:37, 7 April 2010 (BST)

lolzerg. --Haliman - Talk 00:39, 7 April 2010 (BST)

You also forgot to mention two things.

One being that you asked me, not to change the name, but for my password to my account. You went so far as to leave the following comment in the Admin CP. "I asked. I asked again. I asked one more time. This is what happened. ~Li"

Not once did you ask me directly to change the name. I told you what I thought. I was looking at domain manager, which says you can't change a URL.

Most roleplaying members are with you, yes. Most members of the clan itself, not to mention all of our allies support me in the ordeal. You were at one point leader. Your shady movements ((emailing members to get everyone on a new forum)) without alerting all of HC ((Myself and Posydon)) are treacherous. I have banned you from the main forum because of your blatant breach of the charter. Any major change requires a vote. You won the name change vote, which I would have gladly followed (if you told me!), but it did not merit a new forum.

The Charter you signed states in Article IV, Section 4.03 all major changes require votes.

I'm surprised you left out the whole asking for my password part. --Haliman - Talk 00:33, 7 April 2010 (BST)

Not going to bother replying in parts. Haliman I did added the part were I asked for your account. I told Posydon and all HC. You are not HC Haliman, you are the retired founder.And our Allies are in that forum because you told them I throw a coup which is not the case.--LithedarkangelMeth!^{The Great Meth Man} 00:39, 7 April 2010 (BST)

I just talked to Posydon. He said he was unaware. Our allies support the old forum because that is where the majority of our members still are.--Haliman - Talk 00:41, 7 April 2010 (BST)

Our allies may also like to know that most of our best members are in the new forum willingly. Also is someone going to arby this case? This talk is not getting us anywhere.--LithedarkangelMeth!^{The Great Meth Man} 00:44, 7 April 2010 (BST)

Best members in what sense of the word? --Haliman - Talk 00:46, 7 April 2010 (BST)

The ones actually playing UD. Also forgot to add. Considering the url couldn't be changed because our root admin was feeling like not. The only logic solution was make a new forum. So how is what I did unexpected? Also, the reason you were not told was this. You ban people whom you disagree with.--LithedarkangelMeth!^{The Great Meth Man} 00:49, 7 April 2010 (BST)

Name one.--Haliman - Talk 00:53, 7 April 2010 (BST)

Taken from the UBCS's own Charter, section 4.02

High Command have the executive power to be able to impeach The Marshal, Secretary Marshal, or any other Command member due to, but not limited to:

• Inactivity: Inactivity should be one week without notice, or three weeks with notice.
• Treason: Any attempt to overthrow the command or impair the well-being of the community; the crime of giving aid or comfort to the enemies of the UBCS.

A vote majority of 60% is required.

I have a feeling this voting didn't even took place before you banned your own leader. Li, amiright? --Thadeous Oakley 00:51, 7 April 2010 (BST)

And I have a feeling if I try to kick you out of A/A, I may get zerg slime on me. --Haliman - Talk 00:53, 7 April 2010 (BST)

I luv how you avoid giving an answer. Also, A/A is open for everyone to comment. There is no base whatsoever to "kick" me out. Sorry.--Thadeous Oakley 00:59, 7 April 2010 (BST)

I didn't answer because you didn't ask me. "Li, amiright?" I would think one of your many senses would have figured that out. --Haliman - Talk 01:04, 7 April 2010 (BST)

Stop filling up the page, all of you and select an arbitrator. Your cases get made to your chosen arbitrator and should not be put here until that user is selected.

Haliman has selected:

• Drawde - Who has offered to arbitrate
• DDR - Who has commented but not so far agreed to arbitrate
• Misanthropy - Who has yet to comment on this case
• Rosslessness - Who is away for a few days

Lithedarkangel has selected:

• DDR - Who has commented but not so far agreed to arbitrate
• Misanthropy - Who has yet to comment on this case
• Rosslessness - Who is away for a few days

I'll reiterate my own willingness to arbitrate this case, because I seem to be the only one that thinks this is a straightforward and easy to resolve case. This isn't about forum ownership/name changes, it's not about who did what when and said what to whom and why, it's about ownership of a group page on this wiki and this wiki alone. This arbitration isn't couple's counselling, the point of it isn't to make you friends, it's to establish the limits as far as owned pages belonging to the group on this wiki alone. It's really a very simple case. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 00:48, 7 April 2010 (BST)

I must stand by my choices. --Haliman - Talk 00:53, 7 April 2010 (BST)

Saying group ownership doesn't relate to page ownership seems a bit silly. Besides, Hal stepped down as leader, and gave full permissions to Li. Page authorship has shit to say, for many (old) group pages, the original author is often not even a member anymore. Oh who I'm kidding; I'm not sure at all who's side your swinging Iscariot, or on what argument you're basing it. Darn :/ --Thadeous Oakley 00:57, 7 April 2010 (BST)

We have decided via private chat to pick Krauser. I'll let him confirm this.--Haliman - Talk 01:06, 7 April 2010 (BST)

User:Iscariot versus User:Cornholioo

The Battle of Krinks is over. And like the Imperium before them, the NSU insist on trying to alter the result to paint themselves in a better light, diminish the impact others had and for very straightforward propaganda purposes.

As per the example of this case I seek to have the result and subsequent alterations to the article judged and assessed by a neutral third party.

I shall accept any of the following as arbitrator:

• User:Rosslessness
• User:Aichon
• User:Rosslessness
• User:Revenant
• User:Rosslessness
• User:Amber Waves of Pain
• User:Rosslessness
• User:Misanthropy
• User:Rosslessness

Hugs and kisses. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 17:46, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Whilst a member of the Knights, my Knight character did not participate in this outing, as I was already in the area with a neutral alt, from uninvolved group Burning chiton. As such, I am not stepping down as a potential arbitrator, and can point Cornholioo towards incidents of past acrimony between Iscariot and myself as proof of my impartiality. 17:54, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

'past acrimony', I assume you me calling you on your attempts to meat puppet to gain a limited category as a propaganda bonus for your other group? -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 17:57, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to offer to be the neutral third part that will judge and assess the edits to the article. -Poodle of Doom^{M! T} 18:09, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

You attempted to ally with the Order to wipe out the other two factions, your ability to be impartial could be questioned, so I don't think you could arbitrate this case. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 18:20, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

I volunteer to arbitrate, if only to get shot down by Iscariot.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 18:34, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Accepted. --Cornholioo 19:07, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

You can take this as my shoot down ;) -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 14:52, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm just going to write down what is not correct about the page as it is right now. 1. the Coalition and the NSU have agreed the Battle of Krinks has ended on 21 March 2010. The PK do not recognize this, but keep editing the page to 22 March 2010. I would like to see this edited to 21 March 2010. 2. The NSU did not withdrew from the fight, but left after the fight was over to avoid a second one. I would like to see this edited. 3. Martino has posted this: "I revived Burning the Fire and killed a PKer inside the power station, but things do not look good. --Martino 22:31, 21 March 2010 (UTC)" on the talk page of the Battle of Krinks (http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php/Talk:Battle_of_Krinks). The PK keep denying to have lost a man. I would like to see the death count of the PK edited to 'dubious' untill further notice. 4. I have corrected this mistake: http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php?title=Battle_of_Krinks&diff=1679649&oldid=1679646 of Iscariot, which the Iscariot keeps editing back. This has nothing to do with the thing he reported me for, so I would like to see this edited. 5. The PK claim to have made an NPOV article. However, this: "On March 22 the Philosophe Knights declared complete victory and completion of their aims after the previous day's withdrawal of the NSU, the complete removal of non-Knights from Krinks and the pinata-ing of the entire building. Less than a week after entering the conflict, the Knights considered that they had made their lesson abundantly clear and that there was nothing further to accomplish.

With the NSU abandoning the area and the Philosophe Knights indicating that they would leave the area after having taught their lesson to both participants meant that Krinks would be left in the hands of the WWSIS and that the Battle of Krinks would come to a close.", is not NPOV. 6. The NSU doesn't agree on the results of this battle. The PK claim victory, but this is only subjective. The NSU can claim victory for several reasons as well. I would prefer to place only facts here. The only this that have changed, are: a. Krinks got partially ruined. b. The coalition got driven off krinks (most likely temporary). c. The PK have entered krinks (most likely temporary). 7. This is not completely right: "demanding a mutual cessation of conflict and offering future cooperation in protecting Malton's Power Stations." We have demanded a mutual cessation of conflict and offered to add to our wiki page that other survivor groups help us in achieving our goals. Also see this page: http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php/Talk:National_Socialist_Union.

A lot of this is POV or simply wrong. Still Iscariot keeps editing them back. The page has been locked now, so truth can't be spoken. --Cornholioo 18:42, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Truth? From a Nazi? Who treated a mainspace page like his own personal page? Yeah, right. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 14:52, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Exactly. "You're a nazi so you can't say the truth", useless argument. In other words: "everything you say is wrong". That makes no sense. And like I've already explained, I didnt threat the article as my personal page. I've reproduced facts and facts only in the article. What you are doing right now is writing a POV article, you are the treating the article as your personal page. You've even refused to accept a neutral person to rewrite the article. Still you dare to call it NPOV and you even dare to insult me of treating 'a mainspace page like' my 'own personal page'. Now you're inviting a bunch of your PK friends to arbitrate this case. SHAME ON YOU. Though, I have already reacted on this, but you just keep repeating the same argument untill I get tired of it. When I then don't react on it anymore, you have won the debate. The Jew keeps repeating the same argument all the time. When the Aryan gets tired of it the Jew says his question hasn't been answered. If the Philosophe Knights are really so intelligent as they say, then start acting like it. --Cornholioo 8:51, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure if I'm allowed to contribute to this discussion or not, but.. Well, I must say - The comment above (Specifically, the hate speech-sounding one) is low, very low. It has no meaning in this debate, is an direct insult to involved parties, would probably be illegal if uttered where I live and is largely fictional. Sorry for the intrusion. I apologize if I have broken a rule or two. Infrastructure 14:18, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm just explaining a problem. --Cornholioo 9:17, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

As much as I'm flattered that Iscariot would name me as an arbitrator, I'm afraid I have a potential conflict of interest since I was an involved party (I participated in killing those inside Krinks with my Knight alt). While I do believe I could remain objective and impartial in a ruling on this subject, this matter can be easily resolved by other arbitrators, so I see no reason why I shouldn't recuse myself and save myself the hassle of dealing with accusations of partiality should the ruling not go the way people want. So, yeah, I'm recusing myself. Cheers. —Aichon— 18:53, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't know jack about any of this, so I'd make a perfectly impartial party! I've no ties against or for either party that would influence me unfairly in arbitrating this case. Lelouch vi Britannia is helping make Ridleybank green_ and gives Achievements 00:45, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

LOL-Bias. Accept Yonnua. Lets see how he's developing as a member of the community. --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 10:54, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

No, you do it :P -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 14:52, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Chucking my hat in the ring. I watch the PK talk page and read the battle of the krinks page once, but that's my entire involvement. --Karloth Vois ^¯\(°_o)/¯ 13:13, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

You have a concrete history of vandalising Philosophe Knight pages, can you guess what my response is going to be? -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 14:52, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Heh. I'd forgotten about that! Oh dear. If it's any consolation, I've got a concrete history of vandalising the Red Rum page, despite being the group leader at the time. --Karloth Vois ^¯\(°_o)/¯ 23:19, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

I offer to arbitrate. -- Cheese 16:27, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

I accept. --User:Cornholioo 14:53, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

If its not too late I'd like to be the Arbitatortot. I have a lot of experience with Arby's as I've been here many times. Their $5.01 deal is quite good and their Roast Spambeef sandwiches are delicious with Arby's Sauce. If you pick me I promise I will go extra hard on the person that I choose to lose. So if you want your opponent to get a weak slap on the wrist then pick one of the faggots above. They'll be too busy sucking major cock to properly lay the smack down. I, on the other hand, will go over the evidence and from that alone decide who lives and who dies. The decision will be fair, the punishment will not. So if you want top vanquish your enemy then choose me. Also, if you do not choose me you are admitting that you are also a faggot and give me permission to say so on my userpage. --Sonny Corleone ^{DORIS I jizzed in my pants pr0n} 00:34, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

I do not accept. --Cornholioo 14:53, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

Aight, you're a faggot and I'm saying so on my userpage. --Sonny Corleone ^{DORIS I jizzed in my pants pr0n} 00:12, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm going to reiterate the arbitrators that I will accept in hopes my opponent will actually get this case going rather than whine all over the wiki about it rather than doing something to get the page finished. I will accept:

• Ross
• Revenant
• Less
• Misanthropy
• Ness
• Amber Waves of Pain
• Rosslessness

-- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 07:46, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

please? --Sonny Corleone ^{DORIS I jizzed in my pants pr0n} 07:10, 28 March 2010 (BST)

He's already said no. You can't have a 'trator that isn't approved by both parties. Sowwy. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 10:48, 28 March 2010 (BST)

• Ross Denied
• Revenant Denied
• Less Denied
• Misanthropy Denied
• Ness Denied
• Amber Waves of Pain Denied
• Rosslessness Denied

Already explained why. White regards, --Cornholioo 15:10, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

You haven't explained in the slightest, but I have no desire to give you another tangent to go off on to delay this case further. Pick a list of arbitrators you would prefer then. Given you keep saying that page is false it is in your interest to get this case resolved as quickly as possible so the information on it can be changed. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 18:13, 29 March 2010 (BST)

I'll stick to accepting/denying ones that apply. --Cornholioo 10:27, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

So far that's User:Krazy Monkey, anyone else you've accepted I missed? --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 11:29, 30 March 2010 (BST)

Cheese has had a recent history of severe and random absence from wiki activity. In order to get this case resolved quickly I'm unwilling to take the chance and will decline Cheese. My opponent is still complaining about the page being wrong in his opinion but makes not attempt to call new arbitrators to speed up this case I see. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 18:29, 30 March 2010 (BST)

I've already explained, but seen as your intelligence requires it I tell you one more time: they are your PKer friends. There are also some which I've had arguments with before, so I don't accept them. I've also accepted Yonnua, but you've denied him too. DanceDanceRevolution maybe? --Cornholioo 7:39, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Rosslessness is a PKer? News to me. And Misanthropy is many things, but my friend he is not. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 10:39, 31 March 2010 (BST)

I will try this one very last time: READ CAREFULLY: "There are also some which I've had arguments with before". --Cornholioo 20:12, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

I have killed 10 survivors across 3 cities in 3 years. Here's 9 of them. Frankly I feel its massively AP inefficient. --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 17:37, 1 April 2010 (BST)

Speaking of which, let's get one of those beasts up and running again. I need my throne back!!! --

 

 

 

 

17:39, 1 April 2010 (BST)

Im running a story competition, trying to create an entirely fictional city, flagging up coding errors with the New RG and reorganising the glossary. And you're being less active. Too much effort this week. Plus I may abandon UD altogether if there's no FUCKING APRIL FOOLS UPDATE. --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 17:42, 1 April 2010 (BST)

Although doing the case would be interesting, Iscariot wouldn't accept me, not that I blame him with the track record he and I have had together. --

 

 

 

 

08:44, 31 March 2010 (BST)

DDR is right, unfortunately there is a lot of bad blood between us and I don't think either of us would choose the other for a case. How about Suicidal Angel? -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 10:39, 31 March 2010 (BST)

For the record I am about, my absence is only down to a combination of Uni work and work work. However I'm on holiday for the next 3 weeks from Uni so I have a stupidly large amount of free time. -- Cheese 18:36, 1 April 2010 (BST)

Will you accept now Iscariot? --Cornholioo 20:13, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

May I arbi for you two?--Dragon fang 08:37, 1 April 2010 (BST)

Arbitration Cases in Progress

There are currently no recently concluded cases, see the archives for older cases

Recently Concluded cases

Cornholioo vs Saromu

Involved Users	Cornholioo Vs. Saromu
Arbitrator	none
Created	12:34, March 26 2010 (UTC) by Cornholio
Status	Archived
Summary	Dispute over claims made about Cornholioo on Saromu's talk page.

Archives

• List of Arbitration Cases