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.

There are currently no cases under consideration

Arbitration Cases in Progress

Rosslessness vs. Poodle of Doom

Poodle's senseless spamming of Kevan's talk Page with Snow requests is both pointless, and pointless.

I'd like him to stop.

As you can see Poodle is both aware of the case and willing to proceed.

[1]

I'll let poodle suggest an upstanding member of the community to arbie. --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 23:31, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

In a way, I have a vested interest, being my happiness with the game. That said, I will not agree to anyone willing to arbitrate this until I fully understand there standing on the subject. That said, I quit spamming his pages about snow. In fact, your comment was the first one about snow in three days Ross. I don't feel as if there's a need. Honestly, I considered what DDR had said the other day as a warning. Though it wasm't, personally, I took it as one. The remainder of the conversation has been about munchkins, and "Forget-Me-Sticks". On a serious note, sorry I've bothered you so much. -Estacado^Talk 23:40, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

So, you're refusing to let anyone arbitrate for you unless they've already made up their mind on the matter (and presumably done so in your favor)? That kinda defeats the purpose of hearing arguments, being fair, and making a decision based on the merit of what's said during the case, don't you think? Also, that link doesn't apply at all since you haven't been censored in the least. Specifically, that section deals with a very particular form of abuse, and for it to have happened here, Ross would have had to have removed your edits from Kevan's talk page and created an arbies case contesting those edits, with the intended (and malicious) purpose of keeping those comments stricken from Kevan's talk page for the duration of the arbies case. Here, however, Ross neither struck your existing edits, nor did he contest them (he mentions them, yes, but he's not contesting them). —Aichon— 02:28, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

If he's not contesting my posts, why is he arbitrating to keep me from commenting on the subject matter, other than to censor me in some way? -Estacado^Talk 02:39, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

You didn't answer my questions, and I'm not quite sure what your question means, but I'll try my best to answer. If he were contesting your posts, you guys likely would have been in an edit war over them and he'd be asking for their removal here as part of the case. Since neither of those have happened, those posts are not, by definition, being contested. That said, he certainly is trying to bar you from commenting on Kevan's talk page (call it "censorship" if you want, but I think that's too strong, since he's not seeking to have your old posts removed), but it's not related at all to what you linked. What you linked is about an abusive way of gaming the system to censor someone (i.e. get their existing posts removed) without them getting a chance at a fair hearing. In contrast, Ross is working entirely within both the letter and spirit of the system to accomplish his ends, and asking for someone to be barred from posting at specific places is generally acceptable. —Aichon— 03:18, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

I offer my services on the basis of deeming both a.) the reason for the arbies case and b.) the arbies case itself as a sad waste of bandwidth. Plus, one of my groups has once very, very lightly cooperated with Doodles' one. Which is probably the most affection he could hope for from any user willing to step up. -- Spiderzed▋ 23:55, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. I respectfully decline based on my reasons above. -Estacado^Talk 01:26, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

I offer to be a mean old bastard judge and conclude this quickly and decisively. 01:15, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. I respectfully decline based on my reasons above. -Estacado^Talk 01:26, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Recently Concluded cases

Please see Category:Arbitration Cases for older arbitration cases.

Archives

• List of Arbitration Cases