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)

Me and ross have a long history of him telling me to take my grievances to A/A instead of A/VB. I must unironically slap him in the face and tell him that this should have been brought to A/VB as I intended for it to go, had Ross not taken this here first (which as per my last arbie shitfight with Mis, will most likely end up there somewhat in the future). -- LEMON #1 11:52, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Point. Besides If he declines all arbiters, I can always pull out the "Bad Faith Edit" card. --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 12:25, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Poodle has a long history of a love of spam, back to (as I once pointed out in a bitter argument once upon a time) his spamming of talk pages of things like Kevan and BB3 for his RIAC event, as well as recent arbie case and much crap left on many a random users talk page. You're crazy if you think you need some sort of card to convince me. -- LEMON #1 14:18, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Seeing as I'm a fairly unknown-to-most arbi, I'll offer to help out. I have a decent enough understanding of the rules, and I'll get things sorted pretty quickly. --Ash  ^{|  T  |  яя  |} 17:47, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

One question, have you ever heard of this person Ross? -Estacado^Talk 01:43, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes. Just because I haven't been the most active person around the wiki doesn't mean I don't read around it. --Ash  ^{|  T  |  яя  |} 12:56, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm probably more biased than I realize, but I'm willing to try my hand at calming y'all down. --VVV ^RPGMBCWS 23:55, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Piss off shit head. -Estacado^Talk 01:43, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

If you're going to refuse all potential arbitrators, you may as well refuse arbitration. --VVV ^RPGMBCWS 03:40, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

He can't refuse arbitration. If he does, we have to find someone to represent him. --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ ^{#nerftemplatedsigs} 03:42, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Wait, so if someone refuses arbitration, we can plop in some random guy to represent him, and then the first guy will be held to the ruling by A/VB? --VVV ^RPGMBCWS 03:55, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

I think we're confusing A/A with the papacy again. Arbitration isn't decided with a puppet figure, but can go ahead in absentia. 04:03, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

There has been one such Arbie's case to date that one party refused and a representative was elected for him. I don't recall which case. --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ ^{#nerftemplatedsigs} 04:01, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

This seems like awful case precedent. With a puppet, your fate is essentially left to another person against your will. With an empty position, it's 100% your own fault for not defending yourself, and therefore fair. 04:03, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure a TerminalFailure arbies case had him being represented. -- LEMON #1 04:04, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't think it was TerminalFailure. I think it was someone else... --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ ^{#nerftemplatedsigs} 04:07, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Just checked. Def not TerminalFailure. 04:10, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, a puppet is not an option, but if Poodle refuses all arbitrators, the guidelines state that the administration team will assign the arbitrator, and since he must be represented according to the rules, they would likely have to assign him representation as well if he refuses to do so himself. Honestly though, I don't know why he's being so cagey about it. He actually has a decent chance at winning, assuming he puts together the proper defense. It's by no means a one-sided case, much as we might all seem to agree with Ross' sentiment regarding Poodle's action. —Aichon— 04:16, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

No, I think it's pretty one sided given Poodle's woeful cognitive record coupled of course with the case at hand, where he's obviously just being a douche and has been trying to annoy since he came back ([2] [3] [4] [5]), alongside that history of similar pointless edits and spam during his whole career on this wiki like this gem. -- LEMON #1 07:18, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Much as I agree that he's probably earned a loss here and that he likely won't mount the proper defense, I disagree that the case, taken by itself in an impartial manner (i.e. without consideration for those other actions you linked), is anything but open-and-shut in Ross' favor. That doesn't mean that I think Poodle deserves to win, mind you, just that I think Ross doesn't exactly have a strong case for barring Poodle from the page (though, if I were to bet, it'd be on Ross winning). Ask yourself: if it were anyone besides Poodle who had done what he did, would it be seen as one-sided? Anyway, I'm not gonna debate it any further, since I have no intention of handing either side their arguments on a platter, but I don't think it's so simple. —Aichon— 07:45, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

You can't deny arbitration or someone else will be chosen to represent you. It has always been this way and I have been personally forced into arbitration by this logic before by certain sysosps. The (somewhat logically) reason is once you can deny arbitration it becomes pointless since you can't solve any issue with users like Poodle of Fool and we might as well handle everything through A/VB. --(Thad)eous Oakley ^Talk 09:47, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

I still haven't been denied! --Ash  ^{|  T  |  яя  |} 12:56, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Recently Concluded cases

Please see Category:Arbitration Cases for older arbitration cases.

Archives

• List of Arbitration Cases