UDWiki talk:Administration/Arbitration

Message History Archive1 - (April/May 2006) Archive2 - (May/Nov 2006) Archive3 - (Nov 06/June 07) Archive4 - (June/Dec 2007) Archive5 - (Jan/Dec 2008)

General Discussion

DON'T BE FUCKING UP MY PAGE

Seriously. What did you all do to arbies?!?-- ¯\(°_o)/¯ 02:08, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Punishments for violations

Boxy said:

Arbies violations are a day ban anyway. "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" -- boxy talk • teh rulz 12:43 8 July 2009 (BST)

Just a question regarding that Arbies Vandalism note that Boxy quoted on an A/VB case. It seems to be saying that all such vandal cases will be treated as a 1 day ban regardless of any other circumstances... is that actually what it means, Boxy goes on to say its merely to point out a minimum punishment but if that is the case it means you automatically jump up 3 steps for what might be a petty infringement? If its a one off violation would it not be fairer to treat it separately from the actual VB escalations unless it is also Vandalism in the traditional sense? --Honestmistake 13:06, 9 July 2009 (BST)

Why? If someone already has a bunch of active (ie unstruck) escalations on their record I don't think it's at all unfair to punish them harder for violating an arbitration ruling than someone who might only have a few or none. --Cyberbob 13:41, 9 July 2009 (BST)

Its potentially unfair because we have had some pretty poor Arbies decisions in the past and breaching them should not carry such a harsh punishment as a 3 step escalation. I know in most such cases the Sysops would probably find not vandalism but why even have the threat? Also even in clear cut cases like the MisterGame one where some sysops actually said his action was vandalism only because of the Arbies ruling it would seem unfair to push someone to step 3 in one single bound. Obviously MG got only a single escalation as this took him to the usual 1 day ban anyway but I just think that taking a clean sheet to 3 escalations for an arbies dispute is a little OTT. I suggested recording it separately but even just making it clear for future reference that each instance should never actually count as more than 1 escalation for recording purposes would make it a lot fairer for clean sheet offenders.

As for punishing repeat vandals more harshly, thats really a different point and I don't really disagree with you on it in general but would point out that in a heated disagreement it would be easy to go from a 1 day warning to an outright ban through petty and stupid stubbornness resulting from a bad arbies ruling... As such limiting it to a separate VB track might have merit.--Honestmistake 13:59, 9 July 2009 (BST)

As always you are more than free to suggest a modification to the arbitration punishment policy in A/PD. I'd like to point out that losing it in the heat of the moment is no excuse. This is the Internet, and you can (should) always get up and walk away from your computer if you're getting RELLY ANGERY. As for bad rulings, if a ruling is truly bad (this does not include simply "against you") there is the option of having it repealed with another arbitration case. This pretty much only works if the ruling is like on a Nalikill scale of bad - the idea is that you pick your arbitrator so by and large you have to just suck it up. --Cyberbob 14:09, 9 July 2009 (BST)

It's not really a massive problem; I don't remember it ever causing serious drama; so a policy would probably be overkill at this stage. I think a sensible discussion and perhaps minor clarification to the existing rule is all that is needed... The instant ban thing just seems more like it should be a way to enforce your "stepping away from the keyboard" than an actual Vandalism ban (at least for a first infraction) and for a single (possibly minor) thing to potentially need 3 de-escalations is more punishment than i think would likely be merited. --Honestmistake 14:56, 9 July 2009 (BST)

Perhaps it could be recorded on A/VD as the next escalation (a warning if it's a first offense), with a note that it is an arbitration violation and carries a min. 24hr ban regardless -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 21:29 9 July 2009 (BST)

That seems fair... its really only the potential to go from 0 to 3 escalations that I think is unfair so modified report would easily avoid the problem.--Honestmistake 00:33, 10 July 2009 (BST)

Wait. You think that if you have 1 or 0 warnings and you violate a ruling that your warnings count is magically filled up as well as the ban? Because that's not the case at all. --Cyberbob 02:07, 10 July 2009 (BST)

Yeah, my belief is that it would increment "Warning Status" up one notch, with a 24 hour ban, which would also be noted on Vandal Data. If that's not the idea being suggested, I like mine better. --Darth Sensitive ^W! 02:13, 10 July 2009 (BST)

Actually thats exactly what I am getting at, if someone with 0 or 1 previous warnings violates an arbies and is slapped with an Vandal Ban will it get recorded as 1 warning or a 24 hour ban with a note to clarify that it was a result of an Arbies case? If not and its just logged as a 24 hour ban then the next infringement could well be treated as a 4th warning/escalation (48 hours?) I don't even know if its ever happened that someone with such a clean sheet has received a ban this way (and I am not prepared to trawl through the records to check) but I just wanted to clarify that it wouldn't happen that way. --Honestmistake 09:34, 10 July 2009 (BST)

At the moment, it's recorded as a 24hr ban (usually with "arbitration violation" or similar after it), and if subsequent warnings are given for other (non arbies) stuff, the lower warnings are filled in before moving on to the 48hr ban. I'm not sure of what to do if another arbies violation happens? I guess you move on to 48hr ban? -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 14:00 10 July 2009 (BST)

Makes sense to me.--Darth Sensitive ^W! 17:37, 10 July 2009 (BST)

Editing during a case is frankly bad form

Frankly, editing the guidelines for arbitration whilst involved in an arbitration is a little iffy. But since the edits in question, notably hagnats are being questioned, can we have a proper look at the system? SA has already highlighted a number on inconsistencies in the system. Can we get some further discussion in order to get an agreement between all wording? --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 09:36, 9 June 2009 (BST)

For one thing, people should not be able to refuse arbitration. I'm really glad that particular tidbit remained out of the public eye until now (thanks for that you tool, and Hagnat too) because it renders Arbitration 100% useless. Literally nobody would accept cases brought against them. I annoy the shit out of someone (staying within the bounds of vandalism) and they would have no way of making me stop outside of having to repeatedly delete my posts to their talk pages. BUT OMIGOD WE HAVE TO COME TO AN AGREEMANT EEEEEEEEEEEE
Fuck that noise. Users need to be able to easily and painlessly ban people from their talk pages and be able to have A/VB backing them up. --Cyberbob 10:07, 9 June 2009 (BST)

So junk all edits since last discussion. Anything else you feel need to be added, clarified? --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 10:14, 9 June 2009 (BST)

I think that to reinforce the inability to refuse arbitration a clause should be added somewhere stating that if you try to refuse to participate, or refuse all arbitrators, then the person bringing the case will be able to pick whoever they like. --Cyberbob 10:23, 9 June 2009 (BST)

Anyone he likes? So say I had a case against NEWB x and I picked iscariot that would be fine? If this is the case, can we make it part of the process that you must inform the target of arbitration that you're bringing the case and that non attendance will result in it proceeding anyway, perhaps by means of a standardized template? --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 10:28, 9 June 2009 (BST)

A notification like that is something we should have had for ages. As for the other, yes; though I suspect that Iscariot will be more likely to come down on the side of the newbie. If people start abusing the system to pick on newbies I would think that they would be open to A/VB cases, as they would for abusing any other admin page. --Cyberbob 10:36, 9 June 2009 (BST)

I'll throw up a horribly ugly template later on today for people to look at. --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 11:16, 9 June 2009 (BST)

Another option is to have some sort of clause that refusal to participate in arbitration (including the old "refusing all impartial arbitrators" trick), and a continuation of the edit war or behaviour stated in the case, would be a clear indication of bad faith, and hence a greater likelyhood of a warning? It gives them the option to just walk away from a dispute without having to say that they give up, which is fair enough as long as that is the end of it -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 11:10 9 June 2009 (BST)

lol i told you sa. arbies wasn't set up for what you wanted it to do. i guess changing it is as good a way to get something done as any...--xoxo 09:56, 10 June 2009 (BST)

Do you like prunes?

I don't. But I do like to prune things occasionally. So, I'm wondering if anyone will mind if I remove a few names off the arbitrator list. Not like some mass raepage, just people who haven't made more than an edit or two in the past month or so, and leaving a snippet about it on their talk. Then I'll maintain the list and go about this the same as described. Sound good? Questions, comments, concerns, screams for me not to do it?-- dǝǝɥs oʇ ɯɐds: sʎɐʍ1ɐ! 21:50, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

One edit in the past two months should be enough for a user to mantain its name in the list. --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{talk mod} 21:54, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, that's fine. Other people have used similar edits previously. Linkthewindow  Talk  21:57, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

And done. I'll be checking back every month to maintain the list.-- dǝǝɥs oʇ ɯɐds: sʎɐʍ1ɐ! 20:07, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks SA. Someone had to do this :/. Linkthewindow  Talk  06:41, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Time limit on cases

Krazy Monkey said:

Cases that have not been edited by either involved party for longer than 7 days or cases in which no arbitrator has yet been agreed upon after 7 days shall be archived.

Yeah, we need something like that, but isn't setting a limit on how long you have to choose an arbitrator a bit pedantic? On many cases it does take longer then that. What about after a week, something along the lines of "Choose an arbitrator now!" is said, and if no arbitrator is chosen within another week then, archived.

Secondly, I would rather there be fourteen days before any cases get archived (no edits,) but, meh. Linkthewindow  Talk  13:54, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Discussion of Arbitration Cases

User:Spiderzed and Big Coffin Hunters vs User:tyx94 and User:Yonnua Koponen

Hmmm... nothing for over a week. Withdraw? -- †  talk ? f.u. 14:35, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

The policy discussion has still two days left before being cycled, while the template talk page has no closing date. Still, this looks like one of the many arbies that fade away with a whimper. -- Spiderzed▋ 15:52, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

The template talk has two closing dates: Feb. 28th for nominations, and March 15 for voting. -MHSstaff 17:43, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

I refuse to rescind this claim. Either it's solved through PD or the template talk, or I'm having your group forcibly moved to the correct section through arbies.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 16:07, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Forcibly moved? --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 16:47, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm assuming an impartial arbitrator will force them to move it to the correct section.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 18:13, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, we don't force, we rule. Failure to follow the ruling results in a double escalation. --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 18:16, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Ergh, it's effective forcing. And since it's a community page, an arbitrator can put it in a specific way and tell involved parties not to change it, so technically they can't be forced to do it, but it can be forced to happen by an arbitrator.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 18:44, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

But surely you'd want a precedent, so future issues of editing the page could be handled quickly? You want something that allows you to modify the page regardless of who changes it? --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 18:46, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Actually, I think he's most interested in waving his E-penis around. Forcibly.---

| T | BALLS! | 18:53 23 February 2011(UTC)

You know, if this ass heap does go to arbies again, count me in on tyx94's side. This would likely affect the Knights in an adverse manner. 20:33, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Izzy vs Bunghole

I'm not sure if I'm allowed to comment here, so please forgive me if I do it wrong. My question is, why is this case still here? It's completed already. --Cornholioo 23:47, 2 May 2010 (BST)

It was still there because no one had gotten around to moving it yet. Unless someone specifically cleans those things up, we'll generally just deal with them whenever the next case comes around. —Aichon— 00:30, 3 May 2010 (BST)

Zombie Lord vs Lelouch

Clearly has no interest in editing my suggestions other than trolling them. I seek to have him banned from editing any of my suggestions in any way in the future. I will accept Boxy, Honestmistake, SA, Linkthewindow, The Rooster or AHLG as arbitrator.--

| T | BALLS! | 19:43 1 January 2010(UTC)

hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha--Orange Talk 19:59, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Gaf, Lulz. Also Zombie Lord, why did you separate the cases again. Merge them with the 2 below, they are the same. You aren't going to get 3 separate cases, only more drama. If you continue to try to stir up a mess on purpose the only thing you'll get is a ban. --Thadeous Oakley 20:03, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Zombie Lord vs Verance

Clearly has no interest in editing my suggestions other than vandalizing them. I seek to have him banned from editing any of my suggestions in any way in the future. I will accept Boxy, Honestmistake, SA, Linkthewindow, The Rooster or AHLG as arbitrator.--

| T | BALLS! | 07:42 1 January 2010(UTC)

Please Don't feed the Troll!!!

It will only encourage it, and then you'll be sorry!

Just ignore them, and it. will go away. Eventually.

Anywho, as should be obvious to anyone, one of ZL's "suggestions" was put on line to be placed in the no-discussion bin, and he apparently deemed it necessary to copy it and place it back at the top, commonly known as "attention whoring". No arbitration needed, just don't feed the troll. That is all that needs to be said. Verance 14:56, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Merge with the one case above please as it basically resolves around the same.--Thadeous Oakley 15:23, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Iscariot vs Sgt Raiden

Discussion Move to archive