UDWiki talk:Administration/Arbitration/Archive1: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 02:50, 27 February 2011

Amazing should not be an Arbitrator

This petition has failed. No Mod will "remove" Amazing as an arbitrator. Furthermore, Rasher, the initiator of this farce, has said this is simply to get Amazing to 'step down'. Well, that's never going to happen. :) Petition unsuccessful. -- Amazing 21:19, 5 April 2006 (BST)

THE BELOW IS A DIRECT COPY OF Amazing should not be an arbitrator - RASHER MOVED IT HERE AGAINST A DELETION VOTING PROCESS BEFORE THE VOTING WAS DONE. Add your comments to the paged linked, not here, since all of this is, again, just a copy of the linked page put here to further undermine the report and the voting. -- Amazing 03:08, 4 April 2006 (BST)

Actually, Rasher copied it here at the expressed will of the votes. The old page will be deleted soon and is currently inactive. Rasher 05:01, 4 April 2006 (BST)

The voting had not ended, so the action was illigitimate. Comment about Rasher's parentage omitted. -- Amazing 02:18, 5 April 2006 (BST)

It should be noted that regardless of the petition, the Moderation team probably won't be forcing anyone off Arbitration duty. Period. Arbitrators are volunteers, regular users who choose to place their name up for possible duties, and we leave it entirely up to the discretion of the Arbitrator as to whether they wish to involve themselves in the Arbitration process. We don't approve or disapprove of Arbitrators in any way, shape, or form, and never have. Whether Amazing himself wishes to take action on the outcome of this petition is his own matter, and does not involve the Moderation team in the slightest. -- Odd Starter ^{talk • Mod • W!} 15:07, 5 April 2006 (BST)

The goal of this petition for Amazing to step down. Rasher 15:13, 5 April 2006 (BST)

Then you fail right off the bat. Again. -- Amazing 18:12, 5 April 2006 (BST)

	Amazing should not be an arbitrator
	This user or group believes that Amazing should not be an arbitrator. Click the link to sign the petition.

Arbitration

Arbitration is a process by which a third party with no stake in an issue serves as a "go-between" to resolve disputes. Such people by nature must be objective, open-minded, fair, and intelligent. It also requires a mindset of service, since you stand to gain nothing by resolving the matter.

Amazing does not meet any of these criteria. At the time of this writing, of the four Arbitration cases listed on the wiki, three of them involve Amazing. Clearly a person that is incapable of resolving their own disputes should not be chosen to resove other's.

For the benefit of other wiki users, he should be removed from this list, lest he create more problems for those he intends to help.

Furthermore, arbitrators need to be impartial. After GANKBUS' discovery that The General was involved with the CDF rezzing group at Nurten Avenue and he was also involved in arbitrating our case with Amazing, it is clear that impartiality is not a goal for either Amazing or The General. We would have no problem with Amazing being an arbitrator if he was only involved with cases completely unrelated to him, but previous actions indicate that this would not happen and that he is attempting to use this position for personal gain.

Finally, many people have mentioned that we don't have a valid case because Amazing has not actually participated as an arbitrator and thus has not had an opportunity to demonstrate our claims of ineptitude. However, we feel that the wiki community benefits from rule following, beneficial arbitrators of the community and not those who behave like Amazing.

Slander is defined as "words falsely spoken that damage the reputation of another," and the links below will show that none of what we are saying is in fact slanderous.

References

http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php/Moderation/Promotions/Amazing
http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php/Moderation/Arbitration (3/4 cases involve Amazing)
http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php/User_talk:Rasher (inflammatory comments)
http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php/User_talk:Amazing#Deletion_Policy (Amazing not understanding Wiki policy)
http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php/Moderation/Vandal_Data#Amazing (Amazing was warned for vandalization)
http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php?title=Talk:Moderation/Arbitration&oldid=186585 (Amazing vandalizes this page itself, twice after being told not to)

Sign here if you support Amazing as an arbitrator

Deathnut-I dont want to force him to be removeed untill I see how he handles an arbituation case w/o someone trolling on him.
Vista ^W!, People can choose their own arbritrator, He can be disallowed on a case if any of the participants have a problem with him or doubt his objectivity. The one case he arbritrated was handled fair and to a good conclusion, while not the easiest going person on the wiki I do not see a reason to remove him from the arbritration list for other reasons then personal dislike.
Karlsbad Yes, it seems that this petition is formed more out of personal dislike than any actuall movement; Arbitrators can be chosen, if I am correct, and in no way does Amazing's position require any psudeo-political censure on the part of other wiki-members.
Amazing He's the second coming of Jesus. Actually, a group of PKers/Griefers support this, as well as a couple trolls. It's just a personal attack page, and it will deleted shortly. Here is a link to my one ruling. (since there haven't been many to rule upon)
MaulMachine's been banned twice for vandalizing against me. Not very believable. (plus he keeps removing group affiliation from this page to cover his own bias.) Just another vandal troll like most of the folks in this section. He even removed this line from this page, vandalizing it by deleting my comment. Just more proof it's a vandalizing troll.

Slander
1: words falsely spoken that damage the reputation of another

2: an abusive attack on a person's character or good name

Amazing 03:54, 5 April 2006 (BST)
Hey man, Heh heh, Give me some credit, I was the one who Declared it as Slanderous.--Duce Nauks 21:11, 5 April 2006 (BST)
Duce picks up a 1up mushroom! :D -- Amazing 21:18, 5 April 2006 (BST)
Boo Ya! :P --Duce Nauks 15:11, 6 April 2006 (BST)
The General The people supporting this are his enemies, I want to see him have the chance to arbitrate a case before we even think of removing him.--The General 20:09, 3 April 2006 (BST)
Duce Nauks Like previously stated. You really don't have any evidence he is a bad arbitrator.
Nubis I wouldn't say that I love the guy, but you really have no evidence that he's a bad arbitrator. Until he shows to you that he cannot handle an arbitration case, I say keep him on. -Nubis 00:33, 4 April 2006 (BST)
hagnat ^talk - If you think Amazing would not do a good work as an arbitrator, simply do not ask him to be one.
Mia Kristos - What Hagnat said above. Additionally, I was directed to a link where Amazing acted as an Arbitor (I'm going to let him post it) and I think he did a decent enough job. I've had my share of skirmishes in the past, but I negotiated just fine with the CDF despite the potential of bias against them (I'm RRF), so I know it can be done. I say let him do until he screws up...same chance everyone else gets.
Lucero Capell - As has been said, he hasn't done anything to warrant removal. If you don't think he makes fair rulings, simply request a different arbitrator. --Lucero Capell 04:08, 4 April 2006 (BST)
Note: Lucero's vote got deleted from this page (accident I'm sure, considering who did the edit), so I'm restoring it. --Mia Kristos 12:33, 5 April 2006 (BST)
Zod Rhombus Amazing is constantly attacked in-game and on the wiki, most of the time unfairly. He has always acted in accordance to his leadership position in-game and has been a hard worker on the wiki. This page goes to show how shallow and small-minded his enemies are. Let him arbitrate before passing judgement.
Toast Boy See above ^^^ I'd also like to add that Amazing is Amazing
Banana Bear4 - I don't think Amazing should freak out as much as he does. I do think he should not go be involved in so many angry squabbles and arbitrations. I do think he should arbitrate more issues than are arbitrated for him. I don't think he's done anything to warrant loss of position. -Banana Bear4 08:04, 4 April 2006 (BST) Amazings recent vandalism of a group's POV section, directly opposite to his stance of total control of a group page, by a group, makes me not like the way Dr. Zing looks right now. Vote retracted-Banana Bear4 02:27, 5 April 2006 (BST)
Sidenote: Edits were in accordance with an Arbitration ruling in my favor. -- Amazing 06:27, 16 April 2006 (BST)
1 4I think that this whole, "take amazing off as an arbitrator", is just some people's way of saying, "Hey, I'm an idiot who has nothing better to do but rain in on other people fun." Let's end this stupidity and give Amazing a chance...some people are just impartial and can't see the world not revolving around them...here's a tip, "Go Away". The world goes on with or w/o your childish acts of incompetence, seriosuly, learn to play nicely with others or just stop playing the game...--1 4 of CDF 05:17, 5 April 2006 (BST)
Monkphin - Isn't the arbitrator chosen by the people petitioning? If you disagree with how Amazing goes about his role as an arbitrator, then don't choose him as one if you need one. Don't raise some petty petition to strike him from the list for it. Looking over other comments and the list of those trying to get him removed, I'd say this is something of a personal attack and as such should be disregarded as anything but such. Monkphin 12:04 05 April 2006 GMT
Exo2000 - Amazing is just that, Amazing! Personally, I agree with what Monkphin has said. If this is a personal attack, people, get some guts. If not, BRING OUT THE EVIDENCE. And don't just pull it out your ass either. Exo2000 17:12, 7 April 2006 (BST)
Cyberbob240 - I believe he has atoned for his crimes; they were never bad enough to warrant the MASSIVE explosion.

Sign here if you wish to remove Amazing from the potential arbitrators

Someone mentioned on a talk page that people should list their reasons for signing. The reasons against Amazing are clearly listed at the top of the petition. Anyone who has anything to add is welcome to add it, but those who agree with the petition need not state anything else.

Rueful
Rasher
McSnatherson
h4rdcor3
Grim s
furtim
Scinfaxi
MaulMachine Amazing is completely incapable of recusing himself from any matter that concerns him or other he knows, be they enemies or friends. On both his site and this he has shown a complete and utter lack of comprehension of even the most basic social concepts, such as "attention span," and "patience," "likeability," and "fairness." His behavior in-game is petty and petualant, and has repeatedly hone so far as to personally insult users and mods alike on the wiki and desensitized forums. (copied from soon-to-be-deleted page) Rasher 19:33, 4 April 2006 (BST)
CthulhuFhtagn
Ozno Axe 02:35, 5 April 2006 (BST)

~~Prosperina~~ --Signature removed by signer.

Vykos 14:47, 5 April 2006 (BST) With all the 'cool politics' and slander I've been following the last week, and considering all pro's and con's, I think Amazing should do the wisest thing and retreat from the potential arbitrators list to at least keep some dignity about himself. No offense, just my 2 cents.

This section is for folks who want me 'removed'. Care to make another section for your "Amazing should retreat and let people bash him" position? -- Amazing 18:20, 5 April 2006 (BST)

Yeah,.. I changed my mind, I'll make another section.--Vykos 10:18, 6 April 2006 (BST)

Sign here if you like the illusion of democracy

U-S-A! U-S-A! Woooo. --Zaruthustra-Mod 23:52, 5 April 2006 (BST)
Democracy isn't an illusion FNORD, stop spreading your lies! --Mia Kristos 23:55, 5 April 2006 (BST)

Sign here if you like the illusions of Sigfried and Roy

Dude. That tiger totally disappeared. -- Amazing 23:59, 5 April 2006 (BST)
Yeah. AND it appeared in my bedroom. That was a wild night, I tell ya. --Mia Kristos 00:10, 6 April 2006 (BST)
I cannot tell a lie they are quite mysteriousRasher 00:12, 6 April 2006 (BST)
Sigfried never excisted, Roy was just that good--Vista ^W! 11:50, 15 April 2006 (BST)

Sign here if you honestly don't give a crap whether Amazing becomes Arbitrator or not

--Vykos 10:18, 6 April 2006 (BST) GO LAKERS!

--Craw 15:28, 6 April 2006 (BST) Y M C A !

--Technerd 03:53, 7 April 2006 (BST) Yaay Whoo Whatever...

--Lordofnightmares 21:02, 14 April 2006 (BST) I like to burn things

--Conndraka Arbitrator does not equal Mod, God, or Cod (although the petition does smell fishy)

--Mia K ^(sotss) 18:00, 16 April 2006 (BST) (Wow, I just noticed this)

A final note of sorts (I hope)

Since Arbitrators are volunteers and cannot (to my knowledge) be removed for any reason (people can choose who they want or don't want if need be) this petition never really had a chance of having any effect. The wording says that I should be removed, and later on the meaning becomes "Well.. we wanted him to step down." or something.

That said, this was never more than an attempt at causing aggrivation, and the rest speaks for itself.

This petition cannot and will not have any effect, and the creator knew this when starting off.

To close it off, the ball is in my court since I won't be removed - all I need do is step down or not.

I choose "not". The End. -- Amazing 06:23, 16 April 2006 (BST)

So. When can we remove all this wiki drama out of here ? --hagnat ^{t • w} 07:03, 16 April 2006 (BST)

Well since the point is now moot, I suggest that this page be deleted. Does the creator of this page agree? Prosperina 07:09 16 April 2006 (BST)

I think it's already been agreed that the article should be deleted. As for this talk page, it would be better to archive it than delete it, seeing as deletion of talk pages is considered vandalism. --Lucero Capell 07:22, 16 April 2006 (BST)

Actually, I think it's just considered in 'poor form' if warrented. If unwarrented, they definitely yes, vandalism. That said, this is all bordering in bad-faith editing as it is so who knows? -- Amazing 18:53, 16 April 2006 (BST)

True. However, seeing as this documents a past effort (and Odd Starter has reverted the page after someone cleared this section), I still think archival would be best. As for bad-faith editing, not really. It's a talk page, this is discussion. No one has altered anyone else's comments (at least that I'm aware of), it's a (reasonably) tame attempt to try and remove you from Arbitration. --Lucero Capell 00:06, 17 April 2006 (BST)

Sorry I'm a bit confused about what you are talking about, could you explain? Prosperina 19:20 16 April 2006 (BST)

Well, just for clarification, by "this page", did you mean the "Amazing should not be an arbitrator" article, or this talk section? Because I think it's been decided that the article should go, but I think that this talk page itself would be better suited under archival. --Lucero Capell 00:06, 17 April 2006 (BST)

Hagnat's rulings

Before Wikigate was seperated, Hagnat had ruled on a few cases which then got reopened with the division of wikigate. Should these old rulings stand? -Banana Bear4 03:35, 26 April 2006 (BST)

Odd Starter split the cases up and didn't forward the rulings along with it, so I assumed he was reinitiating the case. After that (some time after, so this isn't a factor in the first part) hagnat voted to actually ban me, so I dismissed him as being possibly biased for the re-initated cases. -- Amazing 03:38, 26 April 2006 (BST)

It could easily have been an oversight, as the case was an awfully confusing mess at the time, and I could easily imagine the rulings being missed. -Banana Bear4 03:45, 26 April 2006 (BST)

Did you took your time to read why i voted to ban you Amazing ? Have you taken in consideration that i voted against it before voting to ban you ? Dont you think i have my reasons to vote that way ? And when was i biased against you or anyone else when in my arbitration decisions ? You see, i can handle very well the duty of being an arbitrator. Even if i wished you to be banned, this wouldnt reflect on my decision in any case. Anyway, i think you should have talked to me before starting to call me biased agasint you. --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{[cloned] [mod]} 19:07, 26 April 2006 (BST)

The fact that you voted to ban me for no reason other than personality makes you biased. I'd appreciate it if you didn't try to get me to now change my mind, because it just makes me wonder why you're so hot to be the one to arbitrate. Just saying what it makes me wonder. -- Amazing 23:20, 26 April 2006 (BST)

I have lost my hope on trying to change your mind about anything a long time ago, but i still try sometimes. What i am saying is that you are calling me biased but you didnt took the time to talk to me on why did i voted that way, since before -and even after- i voted to ban you i said you and i were OK (what i was still thinking we were, until you started calling me biased and my arbitrations moot). I still think you could add a lot to this wiki, but think it would be better, for now, if you just left the wiki. --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{[cloned] [mod]} 00:52, 27 April 2006 (BST)

You say you and I are okay. I say we are not. See? Your opinion is not the overriding factor. Stay out of cases you've been dismissed from. Really, it's quite silly how you've been MORE involved after your dismissal. You are not wanted in any of my arbitration cases. You've created a back-door to get back into them. I'm asking you now - Abide by the rules and accept your dismissal. -- Amazing 04:15, 27 April 2006 (BST)

The arbitration changes will be dismissed unless my addition is placed back on in such a fashion as to prevent vandals from removing it. -- Amazing 23:21, 26 April 2006 (BST)

I am sorry amazing, this is not something you can change now. The deadline was placed and it will be followed. --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{[cloned] [mod]} 00:52, 27 April 2006 (BST)

No, it won't unless I agree to it. You may be a Mod but your word is not law. Take it to Policy discussion and have a vote, otherwise you need me to agree or the Arbitration Page rules STAND. -- Amazing 02:33, 27 April 2006 (BST)

On Names and Signatures

<Hypnotoad> I demand my daily dose of Wikidrama
<Hypnotoad> I DEAMND WIKIDRAMA!

Gentleman, you just gave Hypnotoad here a some wikidrama for him to satisfy on. This debate on wether an arbitrator name should be listed using his signature or just his name is childlish. Plase. As i see it, it is way better to post your name and a link for your user page, using the common [[User:Example User|Exampler User]] command. It is better to read, it is better to recognize who is who, and it is better displayed on the page since it uses the same standard. If we use signature we will get sometimes T3hÜbbarHARmanLOLOLLOL!!!1!! CDF - RRF - CMS - BME - GANKBUS - ASS as arbitrator (and his user name is Ted). --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{[cloned] [mod]} 01:14, 27 April 2006 (BST)

I agree. --Sindai 01:23, 27 April 2006 (BST)

The fab five agree with you (HAHA! POPCULTURE!) -- Banana Eye for the Banana Bear

Fact one: People have had notations next to their name on that list for many many months. Fact two: Lucero removed all tags only a short time after I added mine. Fact one dictates to us that this long-standing tradition should not have been eliminated without discussion, especially since he reverted it to his own edit many times, and I was revering the ORIGINAL VERSION. Clearly, this is not an act of good faith, and if it WERE, it'd still be wrong of him to undo a long-standing tradition of the page without discussion and support. Just because I'm involved doesn't make him automatically right, you know. Slapping tags onto your signature shows what you support, and in some instances your contributions to the Wiki. It is damn sure relevant when people are going to decide on weather or not they want YOU as an arbitrator, but don't know who's who. -- Amazing _{• SGP¦McZ¦CDF¦UDPD •} 02:06, 27 April 2006 (BST)
- fact one: to fail in the past dont justify us going on doing the same mistake.
fact two: i said that people wouldnt like that many tags on your signature page. It completly breaks any discussion with tons of links to pages that perhaps add nothing to it. Lucero removed all tags from all signatures, this is clearly a sign of good faith, that he didnt went after only you.

fact three: i categorized all cases from wikigate in separate pages whitout going through any discussion with anyone in this wiki, but it proved to be a really good edit. There is times where it would be best if you just move on and do stuff, not sit and wait for others to approve your ideas.

fact four: people choose their arbitrators based on their behaviour on the wiki, or their user pages, not tags that they support. --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{[cloned] [mod]} 02:20, 27 April 2006 (BST)

Here we go. "To fail in the past" assumes that putting minimal links in your signiture, and using that sig on the listing is a "failure". In fact it is not in any way any type of failing. Furthermore, it's your OPINION that they don't belong. Other people have other opinions on this wiki, you know. How people sign their name is their own choice, and not yours nor Lucero's. Lucero also only removed the tags right after I put mine on. If the sigs are such a big issue why wasn't ANYTHING said or done before then? Answer: They were never an issue at all. Your movement of info to seperate pages is not similar to simply deleting info. The times when it's good to edit without backing seems to only apply to a couple of you guys whose edits are never wrong, as opposed to folks like me whose edits are, big surprise, always wrong. At least according to you folks. In closing, you don't know why every person on the wiki would choose a particular arbitrator, so you're speaking once again as if your personal opinion is a fact. I'm saying the tags can help. That's a fact. They CAN tell people a bit about your contributions and what you do for the wiki or what you support. I have the factual info on my side in this. I'm saying they CAN help in some instances, you're saying they never will. You can't say that without being blatantly false. -- Amazing _{• SGP¦McZ¦CDF¦UDPD •} 02:27, 27 April 2006 (BST)

do you realize you are really making a drama over a tiny thing like names and signatures ? --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{[cloned] [mod]} 02:55, 27 April 2006 (BST)

Yes, it's obvious Lucero originally removed your sig just to poke at you, then removed everyone's so that it would become defensible. However, that doesn't change the fact that removing everyone's fancy sigs is probably a good idea. As an aside, this is a perfect microcosm of how you let people manipulate you into causing a ruckus and making yourself look bad. --Sindai 03:06, 27 April 2006 (BST)

Uhh... no, actually, I removed everyone's right off the bat. --Lucero Capell 03:09, 27 April 2006 (BST)

I know, I was going to edit it to correct myself but you're too quick. Nevertheless, I find it hard to believe it's a coincidence you decided to clean the list just after Amazing added his sig. --Sindai 03:11, 27 April 2006 (BST)

Mia had recently changed her signature too, a few minutes before amazing changed his. If things went that way we would end up seeing a ad-board for all groups and policys in this wiki. --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{[cloned] [mod]} 03:16, 27 April 2006 (BST)

You're right. Lucero didn't remove it after Mia's, only after mine. Good you agree. -- Amazing 04:16, 27 April 2006 (BST)

Christ, you're annoying, you know that. I removed everyone's extra text because the list is a list of names. I don't care that you support the Nose Picking is Healthy Policy. --Lucero Capell 04:20, 27 April 2006 (BST)

I am of the opinion that a list of Arbitrators doesn't need plugs to other places. Keeping it to just the User Page link keeps the page tidy. Oh, and if people want to see where you stand when choosing an arbitrator, there's the userpage link which is certainly a better source of information than a list of abbreviations. Oh and I hate edit conflicts. – Nubis ^NWO 02:10, 27 April 2006 (BST)

I have mixed feelings. On the one hand, I agree with Nubis in that the list should be kept tidy, but I also think links to user talk pages should be allowed, as that would be the most likely way to contact an Arbitrater to begin with. --Sirens^{T RR} 02:22, 27 April 2006 (BST)

Yes, bouncy superscript and style-breaking verdana is going to tell people a bit about the personality of that moderator, and I guess it'll balance out between people being awed and people seeing the plea for attention. But this is an informational wiki list, not a newspaper's small ads. --AAA Wiki Comments Co 02:39, 27 April 2006 (BST)

No one said anything about personality. An arb who is part of Project Welcome and supports various good-natured policies and groups should be able to list themself as such. I ask again what right it is of these guys to remove a long-standing tradition without discussion the second I use it. -- Amazing 04:18, 27 April 2006 (BST)

It wasn't applied consistently enough to be a tradition, there were mods and Welcome members on there who weren't flagged as such. Either we have a clear and fair list that includes all relevant facts for everyone, or we just have a list of names. I agree that it would be useful to have some more data about the arbitrators, perhaps their time on the wiki and the number of cases they've handled, but I think we can live without verdana, superscript, group membership and off-site links to personal pages. --Punchkin 04:42, 27 April 2006 (BST)

Guess what. That's when you realize it's up to the user as to weather or not they add their own tags. :) -- Amazing 04:46, 27 April 2006 (BST)

What? I'm saying it'd be up to users as a group to decide what tags were relevant, and then ensure that everyone's were fairly represented in the same way. And that we'd have them in a uniform format, for clarity, rather than letting people pick their own links and font colour and whatever. --Punchkin 06:43, 27 April 2006 (BST)

Holy crap. Someone who understands basic usability concepts. And I felt so alone and cold.--Jorm 06:46, 27 April 2006 (BST)

Feel free to point out the group Lucero asked, or the anyone who mentioned it previously. Or point out the large group now that supports it after the fact. I could maybe 5 or 6 of the Usual Suspects. -- Amazing 18:54, 27 April 2006 (BST)

Having a huge wiki signature is just another mechanism of compensation for having a small Penis. They are lame and need to go from the list. Over all, one small thing (like a mod point) is kind of useful but otherwise it makes you look like an attention whore. --User:Jorm^{•The Ridleybank Resistance Front is The Best ZOMBIE HORDE EVAR AND THEY ARE MASSIVE! ULTRA PWNAGE!•The Malton DEA is like, the Coolest, Superest, MOST AWESOME PKer Group Around, Ever, and They Will Totally Plant Your Revive Pushing Ass•Shout Out to my Homie Petro!•Shout Out to my Homie Kevan!•Doot doot doot doot doot doot doot!•CNN News is the Shiznite•Ridleybank is My Fair Home, Even When I am Away••••••••••••••••}

d) all of the above. Amazing, quit your persecution complex. If you'll notice, I didn't remove your signature specifically, I removed the extra texty stuff on everyone's signature. It just so happened that you did it about the same time I changed it. As just about everyone has mentioned, it's a list of names, not a GOMG contest! "Users who wish to place their hand up as an Arbitrator should place their name below on the list". Not their name, and everything you could ever possibly want to know about that user. --Lucero Capell 03:04, 27 April 2006 (BST)

Seeing as how you're fresh off an apology for wrongdoing concerning me, I don't think you should speak of a persicution complex. -- Amazing 04:18, 27 April 2006 (BST)

And yet I am. You know why? Because you see EVERYTHING as an attack on you. I apologized for reuploading an image you stupidly uploaded to the wiki, yes. But now fixing a page to make it more concise is a personal attack? Heh. --Lucero Capell 04:20, 27 April 2006 (BST)

Page exists with tags after people's names for Months.

Amazing adds tags.

Lucero Capell deletes all tags immediately thereafter.

Continue to argue against what you and I both know to be true. I don't specifically claim you did it specifically to antagonize me, but I DO know you had no place to remove it, and only thought of it after I placed mine. ;) -- Amazing 04:25, 27 April 2006 (BST)

Thanks for telling me what I know? Amazing, you must not only be a psychic, but you have the power to alter thought! Because that was completely not what I was thinking! Stop telling me what I'm thinking, Amazing. You have this odd tendency to see conspiracies where there are none. I had been contemplating this change for some time, you just happened to pick a wrong time to add your signature. If it makes any difference with you (and I doubt it does), I didn't even notice you had recently added your signature. --Lucero Capell 04:40, 27 April 2006 (BST)

Yeah Lucero, you arse-hat. Stop doing things I agree with darnit! Don't you know thats against Wiki Policy? HURRRR! --Sirens^{T RR} 04:27, 27 April 2006 (BST)

Is it time for comments that have no relevance to the discussion? If so, cork hammer green staple kite dog. -- Amazing 04:29, 27 April 2006 (BST)

I dissagree. My statement has plenty of relavence, but since jokes are lost on you: My signature was edited too, and I believe Lucero was in the right to tidy it up. Stop your whining. --Sirens^{T RR} 04:31, 27 April 2006 (BST)

Funny how you reply to a joke by saying jokes are lost on me. You agreeing has nothing to do with my argument that it was a long standing tradition of the page, removed without any discussion or support at the time. The fact that you agree with it now doesn't really mean much, especially since you edited his edit anyway, if I'm not mistaken. -- Amazing 04:34, 27 April 2006 (BST)

It's my way of saying you're the only one who seems to care. And no, I didn't revert it. I let it be. By the way, thanks for trying to revert my sig for me, even though if I had wanted it done, I would have done so myself. I'm done here. --Sirens^{T RR} 04:38, 27 April 2006 (BST)

One wonders why you cared enough to chime in if you don't care. Well, bye then. -- Amazing 04:47, 27 April 2006 (BST)

I've seen Amazing get angry over some fairly trivial and silly things before, but this just takes the cake. His arguments are simply "they were there a while before." What kind of a reason is that to keep anything? Personally I thought it looked tacky that people were putting their full signature in there. It's a user list, not a "get to know the arbitrators" list. Every edit that someone else makes isn't a bad one, and every one you make isn't a good one, you need to get that through your head. BuncyTheFrog ^{Talk GBP} 05:12, 27 April 2006 (BST)

Would you mind if I remove the GBP tag from your signature there? I'm sorry but it's annoying me, and must therefore be removed. You have no choice and must abide by what I say is annoying or not. </sarcasm> -- Amazing _{• SGP¦McZ¦CDF¦UDPD •} 05:18, 27 April 2006 (BST)

You must have wax in your ears. Is my signature in that user list? Because I could have SWORN I was talking about the arbitration user list. My my, maybe my sight is going. </sarcasm></touche> BuncyTheFrog ^{Talk GBP} 05:21, 27 April 2006 (BST)

How sad. Do you actually not understand that I was speaking to the fact that some folks being annoyed by something doesn't mean it gets removed without the proper channels, especially when it's someone else's posting.. or are you really that dense? Well.. I guess I shouldn't have expected much else. -- Amazing _{• SGP¦McZ¦CDF¦UDPD •} 05:25, 27 April 2006 (BST)

It's a matter of you trying to shift topic, which is something you constantly do. The fact of the matter is, Signatures don't have a place there. Arbitrators, in the purest sense, are supposed to be impartial, and by showing off their groups and affiliations, I don't see how they can come off as being impartial (I know, I know, a lot of them arn't impartial, but that's neither here nor there). Another thing; you've really got to stop trying to call people stupid, it really makes your arguments weaker. BuncyTheFrog ^{Talk GBP} 05:32, 27 April 2006 (BST) Edit: For now, I'm going to sleep. It's late, and whatever Amazing pulls out to throw at me will be inconsequential anyway, so I can sleep soundly. Night everyone. BuncyTheFrog ^{Talk GBP} 05:34, 27 April 2006 (BST)

Didn't see you championing Sig reform on that list before Lucero did it. That's because you most likely didn't care, if you even noticed the tags. Sorry, but I'm not the one shifting the topic. People signed it HOW THEY WANTED TO SIGN the list, the tags had been there a LONG time, even MODS had them. Lucero had no place to remove them without at least a note beforehand. You're SHIFTING it to "it's annoying lol anything i think iz annoying lozes. lol" -- Amazing 05:41, 27 April 2006 (BST)

Amazing, the best changes are the ones so simple that they occur out of the blue, and when they happen, everyone just goes 'Oh, crap! Duh, why didn't I think of that?' My sig got chopped, too, but you don't hear me bitching. In fact, I find it highly appropriate, all things considered. -Wyndal ^{(talk)-(W!)-(SGP)} 07:35, 27 April 2006 (BST)

Amazing I have actually removed sigs on this page before, I just removed broken links and arbitration links that linked to the page itself. But there is however something to be said for removing all links from this page, and I for one like the cleaner look. The fact remains however that Lucero Capell could have shown better timing, but as it happened after two people re-signed the page in order to get their latest links on the page, something I have not seen happen before, I can understand that Lucero Capell took further action where I previously stopped. The resulting edit conflict was not particular wise on his side though. But bad-faith is unlikely as seeing the changes made it I would find it strange if he knew beforehand that you would take offense. As that most of the people who had signatures one the page actually found it an improvement I'm for that we simply forget the grey history behind it and adopt it.--Vista ^W! 08:27, 27 April 2006 (BST)

Don't see how removing things unrelated to total tag removal somehow applies to this situation. Should have been discussed. Wasn't. End of story. -- Amazing 18:54, 27 April 2006 (BST)

I believe the final point has been made, but to follow up, I was right, it did turn out to be inconsequential. I contest you to find where I say "oemgee that loked so stuped it's t3h l0se lol." My points is that signatures don't belong on that list, and having them there, as a side point, makes it look tacky. Thanks for the support Wyndal, Vista. BuncyTheFrog ^{Talk GBP} 13:11, 27 April 2006 (BST)

My point is that no one mentioned it before - because no one cared. Now that Lucero and I are at odds about it, it's something you must now engage in a war of words over. If the situation was reversed, you'd be saying the tags should have stayed and I should be banned. -- Amazing 18:54, 27 April 2006 (BST)

Yes, you know exactly how I think. I believe you are a bane on existance, and everything that you oppose I support. I exist to think the direct opposite of what you think. Etc etc. The reason I'm at a war of words with you about it is because you chose to reply to my comment. I have simply been reiterating what everyone else has been saying, and you've been having the same argument about five times over. BuncyTheFrog ^{Talk GBP} 22:44, 27 April 2006 (BST)

I would like to point out something that has been up since before this whole drama started: "Users who wish to place their hand up as an Arbitrator should place their name below on the list, using ~~~ (three tilde symbols)." So in fact Lucero was enforcing something that people were not following before. The list was always meant to be a list, not a mess of signatures. -- Buncy ^{T GBP} 01:46, 28 April 2006 (BST)

Voting Process

People, please! Let us put an end to this wikidrama over such a tiny thing as how names should be listed on the arbitration page. I suggest all arbitrators to vote on how things should be listed. If you believe only the name of the arbitrator should be placed in that list, say Names. If you think that tags could better represent what an arbitrator support and how he will arbitrate a case, vote TAGS. And add no further comments to your vote or other people's vote. Only arbitrators that signed their names on the list before April 26th are allowed to vote.

Though I do believe it would be fair to allow non-arbitrators to vote as well, seeing as it's not very wiki to exclude certain users. --Lucero Capell 19:02, 27 April 2006 (BST)

It would be more wiki like, but seeing as it's such a minor issue that only involves arbitrators it probably isn't worth the extra time it would need to let everybody have a change to vote.--Vista ^W! 21:37, 27 April 2006 (BST)

Names - --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{[cloned] [mod]} 18:57, 27 April 2006 (BST)
Names --Lucero Capell 18:58, 27 April 2006 (BST)
Tags -- Amazing _{• SGP¦McZ¦CDF¦UDPD •} 19:01, 27 April 2006 (BST)
NamesJjames 19:03, 27 April 2006 (BST)
Names – Nubis ^NWO 19:04, 27 April 2006 (BST)
Names - ~~I think a simple link to the Arbitrator's talk page would be perfectly fine.~~ --Sirens^{T RR} 19:04, 27 April 2006 (BST)
Names --Brizth ^{W! M T} 19:05, 27 April 2006 (BST)
Names - CthulhuFhtagn 20:17, 27 April 2006 (BST)
Names --John Rove 20:23, 27 April 2006 (BST)
Names --Zaruthustra-Mod 21:16, 27 April 2006 (BST)
Names -- BuncyTheFrog ^{Talk GBP} 22:37, 27 April 2006 (BST)
Names -- Jorm 22:38, 27 April 2006 (BST)
Names --Cyberbob240^{CDF - Arb - W!} 22:43, 27 April 2006 (BST)
NamesScinfaxi 22:55, 27 April 2006 (BST)
Names --Karlsbad 00:19, 28 April 2006 (BST)
Names -- Odd Starter ^{talk • Mod • W!} 05:35, 28 April 2006 (BST)
Names MaulMachine 16:24, 28 April 2006 (BST)
Names -Wyndal ^{(talk)-(W!)-(SGP)} 18:35, 28 April 2006 (BST)

I believe this voting passed. There is only 32 arbitrators in the list, and some of them cant vote (since they signed that list after april 26th) and some others are pretty inactive (which makes me wonder how would they arbitrate anything). So, if any one (but amazing, of course) has anything against this. VOTING PASSED. --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{[cloned] [mod]} 22:01, 28 April 2006 (BST)

Note on the above process

	Drama Llama
	The Llama is watching you.

In my opinion, this vote boils down to weather users should be allowed to choose how they want to sign their name or not. It's not worth all this drama, but it shouldn't be one person's (and the people who followed him afterward) decision as to how people can or cannot put their name on a list. Furthermore, it rules out even a "talk page" link. -- Amazing 19:06, 27 April 2006 (BST)

This is a wiki amazing. A single person can change it all if the whole community approves it. --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{[cloned] [mod]} 19:08, 27 April 2006 (BST)

The whole community didn't. No one did until after he did it. No one cared that much before he did it. Indisputable. -- Amazing 19:16, 27 April 2006 (BST)

I'd like to point out that the community probably didn't notice because so few of us actually need arbitration cases. --Sirens^{T RR} 19:21, 27 April 2006 (BST)

Silly thing to say when you're always here to comment. -- Amazing 00:05, 28 April 2006 (BST)

Silly thing to say considering as an Arbitrator, I should watch these pages. --Sirens^{T RR} 00:15, 28 April 2006 (BST)

If you don't see the silliness of saying you don't notice because you don't nee arb cases, then saying you watch the pages... I dunno what else I can say. -- Amazing 06:42, 28 April 2006 (BST)

I said the community in general doesn't pay attention because they don't need Arbitration cases. As for me, I watch for new cases, not new signatures. I have no reason to know who the other arbitrators are. By the way, while we're at it, have you noticed that you're the only arbitrator that agrees with you on this issue? --Sirens^{T RR} 12:20, 28 April 2006 (BST)

Well, discussion/notification is not thrown out in favor of "I'm pretty sure this is a supported action" in a case of a widely used page that has existed in its previous state for a very long time. As for me being the only Arb, maybe you should check the numbers. I'm sure I'll be the only one who votes supporting my position, but I don't think you can claim support or lack thereof from people who haven't voted. -- Amazing 18:42, 28 April 2006 (BST)

How could the community support his actions before he did it? I for one hated the tags but didn't want to get into an edit war for removing them. When i saw them removed I was pleased and thats why I voted to keep them just as names. Not everything is about you, Amazing. Can't we just have an orderly vote on this and accept the decision?Jjames 19:24, 27 April 2006 (BST)

How? By him mentioning it before acting, as opposed to acting without asking. -- Amazing 00:05, 28 April 2006 (BST)

It seems like a good faith mistake however, and one easily rectified by this vote. I honestly don't see your problem here. The people voting obviously agree with the decision. Why do you object to people voting on a decision that affects them?Jjames 02:37, 28 April 2006 (BST)

I don't, in fact it only happened through my pointing out there was no concensus before action was taken. -- Amazing 06:42, 28 April 2006 (BST)

There are a lot of wiki pages that need tidying up, but that doesn't mean there's an ancient and unchallenged tradition for them to remain untidied. It does seem reasonable that your crazy verdana external-link thing was enough of a final straw to catch someone's attention and provoke them into finally taking action, but that doesn't mean the existing list wasn't ugly already. --Punchkin 05:40, 28 April 2006 (BST)

Beside the point. Vote's pretty much showing what will be done. No more need be said. -- Amazing 06:44, 28 April 2006 (BST)

The list of Arbitrators isn't a Signature issue, it's just that, a list. As for a talk page link, well shit son you can do that by clicking on their name and then hitting the discussion tab. Tough, huh? – Nubis ^NWO 19:09, 27 April 2006 (BST)

Additionally, one can change thier link in the list to point to thier talk page, since that's the probable destination of anyone clicking on one of those links. --Sirens^{T RR} 19:13, 27 April 2006 (BST)

We'll see what Lucero will allow you to do, since he's the page owner, I guess. -- Amazing 19:16, 27 April 2006 (BST)

Explain why it was left that way for so long. -- Amazing 19:16, 27 April 2006 (BST)

Quoting wyndal: the best changes are the ones so simple that they occur out of the blue, and when they happen, everyone just goes 'Oh, crap! Duh, why didn't I think of that?' . --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{[cloned] [mod]} 19:24, 27 April 2006 (BST)

Quoting Amazing: "Note: Wiki. Anyone can edit. End. -- Amazing" End. --Lucero Capell 19:27, 27 April 2006 (BST)

And you removed everyone's edits. Repeatedly. So you can but I can't. Good work proving yourself wrong. -- Amazing 00:05, 28 April 2006 (BST)

No, it's that the will of the majority will prevail, on average. And that maybe a quick vote is the best way to see how that will go, and how we should reword the page's explanation, to spare an edit war. --Punchkin 05:40, 28 April 2006 (BST)

Shouldn't you be focusing on one of the many arbitration cases you currently have pending, instead of causing more problems here? Should we just change the arbitration section to the Amazing section? Why would anyone need to know that you are a supporter of McZed's before they choose you as arbitrator anyway? Would they be worried about you being biased if they are a vegetarian? You are the only one violating the note to leave tags off and it is shows your disregard for the wiki. Hop on da bus!Scinfaxi 23:05, 27 April 2006 (BST)

I can't read Trollish. Sorry. -- Amazing 00:05, 28 April 2006 (BST)

I'm not even slightly hesitant to say that I don't like Scinfaxi, Amazing, but you're completely wrong, and there is nothing trollish about what he said. Too busy to read, I guess. -Wyndal ^{(talk)-(W!)-(SGP)} 18:42, 28 April 2006 (BST)

Ah, that explains alot about you. And yeah, I'm not the one who can't/won't read. Scinfaxi's clearly made a handful of trollish comments there, and saying otherwise shows your inability to spot it, or actual falseness in that you pretend it doesn't exist. If you want I can quote the trollish bits so as to better educate you for spotting them later on. -- Amazing 06:54, 29 April 2006 (BST)

It may be true that the sudden action is a little out of form, but I'd say that if it's clear that enough people agree on the action, then it is actually possible to justify actions after the fact on the basis of popular support. And it's pretty clear that this particular action has popular support. If it didn't, then you may be justified, Amazing. But from the vote above, where you have the only dissenting vote, I'd say that the consensus is pretty clear. -- Odd Starter ^{talk • Mod • W!} 05:34, 28 April 2006 (BST)

As I said, the vote came about specifically because I mentioned there was none, and that there should be one (or should have BEEN one). -- Amazing 06:42, 28 April 2006 (BST)

Another point, which people haven't thought of, is the greater issue of using templates as signatures. This is, in my opinion, a VERY bad idea and should probably be highly discouraged. The reason is because template processinging of any kind (in virtually any language or system) is a relatively expensive CPU process for it's value. Singly, it's no big deal, but when we have pages that have to process the exact same vanity templates (and that's what they are - vanity templates) 20 and 30 times, we start nickle-and-diming the server's processor to death.--Jorm 05:40, 28 April 2006 (BST)

ZOMG DONT ARGUE SERVARLOAD!!!111.. Wait, wrong page.. -- Amazing 06:42, 28 April 2006 (BST)

Man. You are just a peice of work.--Jorm 08:36, 28 April 2006 (BST)

Have you never been to the suggestion page? If not, I can understand how that would zip over your head. -- Amazing 18:39, 28 April 2006 (BST)

He didn't say that he didn't understand, Amazing, he said that you're 'special' for bringing it up. -Wyndal ^{(talk)-(W!)-(SGP)} 18:43, 28 April 2006 (BST)

Since all I did was make a joke referencing the Suggestions Page and a common statement thereon, his reply didn't fit the nature of the statement. Hence my query and follow-up observation. -- Amazing 06:57, 29 April 2006 (BST)

Slightly different issue, Amazing. Each use of the Suggestions Template only occurs on a single page. Not a real problem. Sig templates, on the other hand, have the potential to proliferate across an exceptionally large number of pages. The Suggestions Templates are at least kept to small subsection of the wiki, that's unlikely to grow further. -- Odd Starter ^{talk • Mod • W!} 07:31, 30 April 2006 (BST)

It was a joke -- Amazing 07:36, 30 April 2006 (BST)

Already on the page is that arbitrators must sign using ~~~ so templates are a non allowed format in the arbitrator line up. Best to change it yourself as soon as there is a mayority for one side of the voting process. --Vista ^W! 08:23, 28 April 2006 (BST)

SOAW

New template bitches

	Sigs On A Wiki
	This user wants these motherfuckin' sigs, off his motherfuckin' wiki!

--Mpaturet 05:10, 29 April 2006 (BST)

It's not really your wiki, though. I like the general message, but the swearing could be toned down and the "my wiki" bit be changed to "this wiki" or something. --Cyberbob240^{CDF - Arb - W!} 05:15, 29 April 2006 (BST)

If you do not understand the reference then you are unworthy of this template. Hint: Samuel Jackson--Mpaturet 05:16, 29 April 2006 (BST)

I understand the reference perfectly. --Cyberbob240^{CDF - Arb - W!} 05:17, 29 April 2006 (BST)

Then you'll understand why I inserted the "Motherfuckin'" s--Mpaturet 05:19, 29 April 2006 (BST)

I understand. But it still doesn't change the fact that some people aren't going to like it. I personally don't care, but there will be people giving you a hard time about it. --Cyberbob240^{CDF - Arb - W!} 05:23, 29 April 2006 (BST)

Then I'll just release the snakesssss--Mpaturet 05:24, 29 April 2006 (BST)

That could work. :D --Cyberbob240^{CDF - Arb - W!} 05:24, 29 April 2006 (BST)

Pardon me while I analyze for a moment. The primary pleasure found in the concept from which this is wrought is, ofcourse, the neo-classic SOAP reference. Because, as well as a plane being the modern ophidians most efficient niche habitat, it is because, in all honesty, what are you going to do when there are some MOTHERFUCKIN' SNAKES ON A MOTHERFUCKIN' PLANE!, ? You aren't going to go into the local department store and grab a chainsaw when you are 10k feet in the air, are you?
So, what can you do, its Snakes On A Plane; the modern Shit Happens of our era. Why do I care?
Because whenever there is a pointless drama-scrawl going on in this wiki, I'm going to shout as loud as I want, SOAW! There is NO REASON for such a simple procedural issue such as Names/Sigs on the Arbitrator list to turn into some raging catfight, on both sides. But hey, Sigs On A Wiki is my term for all the snap-judgements and rude behavior on this mother-fucking website.
No matter what happens, here is the effect: Amazing hates whatever Hagnat does, and Grim S hates everything Amazing does, CyberBob hates everything Grim S does, Mia K hates everything CyberBob does, I hate everything Mia K does, and on, and on, and on. Pretty soon the whole damn wiki is driven into the ground.
So, instead of attempting to get people to actually READ WHAT IS WRITTEN (not what the intent is, what the tone is, who the speaker is), I will instead scream SOAW. Because what are you going to do when, instead of creating actual discussion, all this becomes is Sigs On A Wiki, trading and dancing with eachother becoming a waltz into wiki hell. --Karlsbad 06:14, 29 April 2006 (BST)

That's all pretty good, except I don't hate everything Grim does (anymore) and I don't think Mia hates everything I do. Doesn't she? --Cyberbob240^{CDF - Arb - W!} 06:22, 29 April 2006 (BST)

Anndddd you've got caught reading SOAW! Sigs On A Wiki! There is nothing important about the letters Gee aR Iee eMm eSs when assembled into a form of a random phrase, but because we all know the Sigs on this Wiki, it means something to us. I conciously put names up that followed logically; Amazing doesn't automatically snarl at me for what I do, for example- so I inserted alternating "sides" of the drama in alternating spots. I also did a leap in you and Mia K, because it felt obvious to me that I should not recuse myself from reading SOAW instead of content, because I was thisclose to putting useless text on her mod application when it wasn't needed. So therefore, you gain a fictious enemy so that I can be made into one of the stupid bad guys. Sorry about that. --Karlsbad 06:30, 29 April 2006 (BST)

Yarr...Be you one of them stupid ninja bad guys?--Mpaturet 06:36, 29 April 2006 (BST)

Yarr! He be ninja! Get him afore he steals our treasure mateys! --Cyberbob240^{CDF - Arb - W!} 13:25, 29 April 2006 (BST)

Actually, I find myself to be on of those Minnesota Pirates. (read with the classic Fargo accent) "Yerr, I think we should rape and pillage over dere, Yerr." "You gonna walk the plank, donchaknow." "Oh yah, we got dat big cannon, yubetcha!" --Karlsbad 08:10, 1 May 2006 (BST)

Dear Coen brothers,

Die.

Warm Regards, Minnesota

Every time somebody does that 1940s iron range accent I want to stab them in the face. --Zaruthustra-Mod 08:31, 1 May 2006 (BST)

Deadline

i was thinking about giving all parties a deadline to solve all cases in Wikigate. I believe we have more stuff to do in this wiki than sit and wait for one side of a case to give more evidence while the other disagree with the moderators choosen by the other. So, i propose a two weeks deadline to all cases, starting today at 14h GMT. If all cases arent solved by May 10th, the arbitration and/or moderation team will decide which side is wrong and all parties involved will have to agree with their ruling. --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{[cloned] [mod]} 02:43, 26 April 2006 (BST)

Sounds like a good thing. I have an April 30th deadline to turn in a script. After that I get "notes" back after they've read it, telling me what to change. This has been a contributing factor in my multiple statements that I can't get to things until I can get to things. Should be cleared up by May 10th. If not, I guess I'll have no choice but to forfeit, because May 10th sounds like more than enough time at this point. -- Amazing 02:55, 26 April 2006 (BST)

Received and understood Conndraka 03:03, 26 April 2006 (BST)

I Would like to suggest this for all future arbitration cases. If any case dont reach an agreement, the arbitration and moderation staff will then be able to step in and take a decision that both sides could not like, but that they will have to agree since they couldnt settle during the two weeks period. --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{[cloned] [mod]} 03:19, 26 April 2006 (BST)

By the time the deadline nears its end we shall work on how the whole thing will be handled. My suggestion is: any Arbitrator can make a suggestion for a ruling and the others will then vote if the approve it or not (and what it should be changed them). It would work based on majority votes done by the arbitrators that signed their names BEFORE the wikigate drama begun. This means those who were arbitrators before 16th April. Any arbitrator will be able to suggest a ruling (use that case talk page), with exception if they are involved somehow in the case (this means amazing and zar are out) --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{[cloned] [mod]} 19:07, 26 April 2006 (BST)

Arbitrators dismissed from the cases cannot arbitrate. This is a very basic rule that will stay in place unless ALL arbitrators are dismissed, which shows bad faith. I will not allow the folks I am talking about to put their names on the list and create a majority to push through their own win. Nor shall I forfeit my right to dismiss any given person who I deem too biased from past history. If this rule is not accepted, this entire change of proceeding will not be accepted. -- Amazing 22:01, 26 April 2006 (BST)

I can understand not wanting people involved in the cases to arbitrate, however, you outlawed almost half of the arbitrators. Your views of what is bias are very broad. If you don't want arbitrators like Hagnat arbitrating, just work hard to sort this out by the tenth and there's no prob. -¯\(o_º)/¯Bear 22:09, 26 April 2006 (BST)

Some of the people I dismissed are IN THE CASE, others added themselves after the case was opened, clearly with the intent of judging only this case. The remaining dismissals are warrented due to behavior of the arbitrators in the past that cause me not to trust their judgement. I dismissed them within my rights as per the guidelines, and my stipulation that NO dismissed arbitrator will judge a case in ANY instance unless ALL are dismissed, in which case the Arb list of the one who did NOT dismiss everyone stands - WILL be a guideline or all of it will be totally revoked, since the whole thing was brought about as an 'everyone has a say' type deal. I don't think you can make a possible solution while simultaniously kicking one of the people involved directly in the teeth by overturning their RIGHT to dismiss trolls and the biased. That solution will not be accepted by me unless this stipulation stands. -- Amazing 23:25, 26 April 2006 (BST)

Three things: New arbitrators could have stepped forward for many reasons, not the least of which being that they saw the awful state arbitration was in and wanted to help. Secondly, this all isn't just up to you. Thirdly: <O)eeeee[|):::::::::::::::::::::::::::::> -¯\(o_º)/¯Bear 00:00, 27 April 2006 (BST)

To put it simply, dismissed arbitrators will not arbitrate any case they have been dismissed from unless all arbitrators are dismissed, or the procedure will be refused in whole and the original Arbitration guidelines will be the only ones that apply. -- Amazing _{• SGP¦McZ¦CDF¦UDPD •} 02:29, 27 April 2006 (BST)

Now, let me make this clear. Things as they are now are chaotic and in no way productive. This deadline is a way to finally put an end to all this wikigate drama thing, and bury it in a seven foot deep grave.

Arbitrators, even those dismissed by any of the sides involved, will be able to rule a case after the deadline ends. The simple fact that they were initially dismissed is perhaps one of the reasons why it was impossible to settle that case in the two weeks period we are gaving you now. But they wont just rule, they will propose a ruling, and we (the other arbitrators and moderators) will vote if this ruling is fair or not, and how it should be changed to be fair with both sides. This will took time so the arbitrator can settle on a ruling, but it will be the best way to finally put an end to this whole (putrid) history.

And, if you didnt read it right amazing, those arbitrators who are involved in any way with any case are not going to rule anything, even those they have no involvement. And only those arbitrators who joined the arbitration ranks before April 16th will be able to participate. --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{[cloned] [mod]} 00:41, 27 April 2006 (BST)

Dismissed Arbitrators will not rule unless all arbitrators are dismissed, or I refuse your 'new' rules which really have no weight unless we approve, since they're coming from you and not the Wiki guidelines. Explain why you want dismissed arbitrators to rule when all arbitrators have not been dismissed. What goal is behind thwarting the rules of the page? -- Amazing _{• SGP¦McZ¦CDF¦UDPD •} 02:32, 27 April 2006 (BST)

My goal is to find a way to end all this. If you didnt read what i said, i am saying again. The dismissal of arbitrators might be the cause why a case take so long to be ruled. --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{[cloned] [mod]} 02:53, 27 April 2006 (BST)

You are trying to push through the ban you voted for on Mia's petition based on the flimsiest of excuses. Nothing more. -- Amazing 04:13, 27 April 2006 (BST)

*Sigh* Ok amazing, arbitrators who were dismiseed will not be able to rule a case. Now, explain to us how we are going to rule Amazing vs. Ass and Amazing vs Scinfaxi if ALL arbitrators were dismissed in those cases ? I am not saying they were writtenly dismissed, but one could leave only one arbitrator, a very inactive one, like Example User, as a possible artbitrator, and then we would have only his ruling on a single case.

Try do understand amazing, i had my reasons to vote for your banning. But this has nothing to do with my arbitration work. I am saying things would be ruled this way because i believe this way things will work. If you have any better idea on how to rule things after the deadline, please, say so. --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{[cloned] [mod]} 18:48, 27 April 2006 (BST)

I proposed that if ALL arbitrators are dismissed, the person who did not dismiss all of them should have their list respected. - That's common sense, you know.

You had no reason to vote for my banning - other than dislike of my personality or the arguements I get into on this wiki - neither of which are bannable offenses, if you'll check. You voted for going outside the rules, so I cannot trust you to stay within them. (as seen here in your attempt to arbitrate a case you were dismissed from.) I have a ton of ideas. None would be respected, so let's not waste our time. -- Amazing 19:14, 27 April 2006 (BST)

Then amazing, work on these ideas! I have already said that i believe you could add a lot to this wiki, but lately you have added nothing but grief! Why dont you work on something like my rework on the suburb pages that i did while busy handiling all this mess in the arbitration page ? Show the wiki community something to respect you, amazing.

As for my attempt to arbitrate a case you dismissed me, i apologize for that. But i was tired to see all this mess not going away, so i ruled, and i believed my ruling was fair, and it was! Three other arbitrators backed my ruling (one even gave a thougher version of it) as fair! I fail to understand how and why i am being accused of being biased against you, based only in my vote on that policy thing, even if everywhere i go i try to settle things fair for the wiki . --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{[cloned] [mod]} 19:22, 27 April 2006 (BST)

I have to agree with both Zar and Vista, I'm tired of people using this place as a cudgel. MaulMachine ^U! 17:43, 16 May 2006 (BST)

Moved from front page

Note to Scinfaxi et al: Abusing the Arbitration page by signing up, 'ruling' on a friend's case, and moving it to Solved will no longer be tolerated. Reports to the Vandal Banning page will be made in the future. Amazing vs. GANKBUS and Amazing vs. Rasher have been moved back to the appropriate section, with correct info. -Wyndal 23:52, 28 April 2006 (BST)

But, can Scinfaxi get some recognition for trying to solve the case in a fair and unbiased manner? Did I really move it to solved cases though, cause' otherwise it's not vandalism. My memory is a little hazy. Scinfaxi 00:50, 29 April 2006 (BST)

Actually I moved them, so you may want to threaten the right person. The cases have been solved. True dat, double true! Rasher 01:35, 29 April 2006 (BST)

neither Rasher or Scinfaxi are allowed to move Amazing vs. GANKBUS and Amazing vs. Rasher, any moving of those cases by them should be refered to vandal banning.--Vista ^W! 02:21, 29 April 2006 (BST)

I just checked. Vista, don't threaten me asshole. I didn't move it, I just commented on it. That doesn't violate any policy you've got here. Also, Wyndal don't threaten to report me you stupid douchebag. Both of you need to do a little fact checking before you make accusations against me. Don't make me call you into a seventeen page arbitration page for harrassment of any kind (yes that's right, even sexual harrassment). Scinfaxi 08:41, 29 April 2006 (BST)

I fail to see both the threat and the accusation that you claim I made. Rasher name was there, because he did move them and was involved in the case, your name was there because you were listed (and jockingly acted) as arbitrator even though you were dismissed and were thus involved in the case. My comment was to broaden the note of Wyndallin was merely made to include the person who actually done it.--Vista ^W! 12:57, 29 April 2006 (BST)

I used 'Scinfaxi et al' for a reason. I didn't care to check, and I was not targeting him specifically, but him and everyone else who considers him an ally in his anti-Amazing endeavour. -Wyndal ^{(talk)-(W!)-(SGP)} 10:36, 30 April 2006 (BST)

You need to clarify next time. Otherwise, I WILL ARBITRATE YOU FOR HARRASSMENT! Seriously, you're violating my civil rights. I dismiss you as an arbitrator for this case. Scinfaxi 18:07, 29 April 2006 (BST)

Wow. This explains so much. I wonder how many other people who antagonize me are Scinfaxi's room-mates. -- Amazing 03:34, 30 April 2006 (BST)

Don't make unfounded attacks against me. I'm not the one antagonizing you. I'll ask that you refrain from insulting me. I may be Scinfaxi's roomate, but that doesn't give you the right to slander me. There is no guilt by association policy on the wiki.Jjames 05:12, 30 April 2006 (BST)

The answer to that question is yes, because it's impossible that two people who live together would play urbandead and post on two different IP addresses (most of the time). If it helps your peace of mind though, yes. Scinfaxi 06:00, 30 April 2006 (BST)

That's okay. I'm sure a lot of folks make soopar-sekrit alts to help support their views. -- Amazing 06:18, 30 April 2006 (BST)

I am tired of your instigation, amazing. If you continue to slander me, I will bring YOU to arbitration. I am in no way scinfaxi's alt. I've been playing the game for way longer than him and just happened to suggest it to him. He told me about the wiki and I don't see how you can say we're alts. We are obviously totally different people, and I'm tired of you attacking me because you hate scinfaxi. If you make one more baseless accusation against me, then I will take you to arbitration. I am tired of your double standards and hypocritical behavior.Jjames 06:53, 30 April 2006 (BST)

You're what I consider a Troll. You are a griefer. You are supposedly Scinfaxi's room-mate. I believe you to be the same person. Saying that I believe that is something you really can't do anything about. Sorry. "Obviously" nothing. There's no discernable difference between the two of you, and saying there is just makes me suspect it more. Futhermore, there is no double standard here. Again, sorry. -- Amazing 07:03, 30 April 2006 (BST)

The discernable difference is probably the two seperate IP addresses we use most of the time. Of course, you've always thought I use alts. Scinfaxi 08:18, 30 April 2006 (BST)

"Most of the time" meaning "when I remember to set up the proxy/log in from the computer lab instead." -- Amazing 08:22, 30 April 2006 (BST)

I'm not smart enough to do the proxy thing, but I could log into a lab if I wanted. I just remembered though, I'm arguing with someone who already thinks I'm every member of GANKBUS and the Faggots. I feel special to have enough friends to grief you, since I am only one man. Scinfaxi 08:30, 30 April 2006 (BST)

Well, anyone can see you diverting my "You are jjames" claim into "AMAZING SEZ EVERY1 ON TEH WIKI IZ TEH ZAME PERSIN!!!" so really it's obvious you're just annoyed you slipped up and got caught, and are trying to wriggle out any way you can. -- Amazing 08:39, 30 April 2006 (BST)

You caught me Amazing, your talents would be better served fighting crime. You've always considered me to be a zerger (by the way, what is Zod up to these days?), and since you have no actual friends around your parents home, I won't be able to convince you of anything. I'll let the evidence speak for itself. Scinfaxi 08:43, 30 April 2006 (BST)

Let the evidence speak for itself.. please. I beg you. Whatever stops you from speaking. btw You're more fun on your other account. -- Amazing 08:45, 30 April 2006 (BST)

People have accused all great civil rights leaders of having alternates, this comes as no great shock. Scinfaxi 06:57, 30 April 2006 (BST)

See what you did there, Amazing? You called me an alt again. You didn't say that you believed I was an alt, you made a statement of fact. That is not allowed on the wiki. Further instances will result in arbitration. Personally, I don't see the similarity between Scinfaxi and myself. With the exception of a single comment, I have always treated you respectfully and civily and have never trolled. You complain that people make unfounded accusations about CDF or that people insult you and then you turn around and do it to me. That is hypocritcal. Once again, any further accusations or defamation will result in arbitration.Jjames 16:00, 30 April 2006 (BST)

Arbitration? I'd love to see what happens between y'all; but just to throw in, I don't think that we are assured that Jjames is Scinfaxi or that Scinfaxi is Jjames: Jjames has usually spoken in calm and rational tones, while Scinfaxi is about as close to a nasty pus-boil as you can anthropomorphise. So either A- Jjames is the calm, rational, intelligent persona of a scitzophrenic Scinfaxi or B- Jjames is the affable Business & Management major while Scinfaxi is the "young dumb and full of cum" Philosophy/PolySci major with WAY too time on his hands. --Karlsbad 19:24, 30 April 2006 (BST)

in my country the personality types are usually reversed, Philosophy/PolySci are the nice, polite, hard working ones, law students and Business & Management are the crazed inane with WAY too time on their hands -types , Yay for cultural diversity!--Vista ^W! 19:51, 30 April 2006 (BST)

You REALLY don't know how right you are with that one Vista. Scinfaxi 07:19, 1 May 2006 (BST)

Well, if you're going to create an alt to support yourself - you'd want to play it out as if they were rational and calm, but still support everything you say and do. Lends credibility to idotic behavior. JJAMES IS SCINFAXI'S ALT! Now let's see if jjames really believes your "ZOMG NOT ALOWD" to call someone an alt, or if he's just purposefully pretending to be obtuse for the purpose of being annoying... a trait he shares with Scinfaxi. -- Amazing 21:26, 30 April 2006 (BST)

I don't support everything Scinfaxi says or does. That's why I try to do all the talking for the Faggots on the wiki. I don't want to be drawn into his pointless wiki battles. I think Scinfaxi just likes to kid around and doesn't take any of his arguments seriously, which is fine for him, but I know that many of the people he gets into fights with do take it seriously. I am on the wiki to make my in game experience more enjoyable and if you think I grief on you in game, then fine. Deal with it in game. Arguing on the wiki about in game beefs just seems too much like the time my older brother side kicked my twin for beting him at mortal kombat 2 only using sweeps. As for whether you are allowed to call someone an alt, wasn't it you who brought people to arbitration for accusations of zerging? I beleive the decision was that an opinion is allowed, but you can not make uproven statements of fact. If you want to say "I am totally convinced that jjames is an alt" that's fine, but don't make statements of fact that can't be proven. I don't know why you seem to hate me, Amazing. But all I'm asking is that you simply distinguish your opinion from fact. Can't we at least agree on that with out third party involvement?Jjames 00:26, 1 May 2006 (BST)

Who specifically began smearing in-game enemies with falsehoods, insults, etc. on the Wiki? Seems to me it was you guys. I'm sorry, but your circle of friends is the entity that needs to keep in-game malice in-game and not call dirty names and make false allegations that don't even remotely pertain to the game OR the wiki. Nice try, though. I've repeatedly said I believe you to be the same person. Do I offer it up as straight fact? No. Does the group of folks you hang out with present mockery and falsehoods as fact about me and the rest of my group? Yes. And yeah, I still think you're just Scinfaxi trying to use a more respectable presence to get some of the heat he's caused off of his ass. Arbitration will not stop me from saying this, because I always state it's my opinion, and it is not a personal attack.

Plus you're in step with the guy who reset my password over 100 times and someone associated WITH that person who has admitted to it and not offered anything to stop it. -- Amazing 01:40, 1 May 2006 (BST)

Some quotes:That's okay. I'm sure a lot of folks make soopar-sekrit alts to help support their views. -- Amazing 06:18, 30 April 2006 (BST)

You're more fun on your other account. -- Amazing 08:45, 30 April 2006 (BST)

it's obvious you're just annoyed you slipped up and got caught, and are trying to wriggle out any way you can. -- Amazing 08:39, 30 April 2006 (BST) All statements of fact. In these examples you do not specify it as your opinion. My "circle of friends"? What are you talking about? Have you seen me post once on the GANKBUS page, on ASS, on any arbitration but my own? I have not endorsed their actions on the wiki in any way. Why do you lump me in with them? I haven't even backed up Scinfaxi once. I haven't tried to get his case dimissed, I don't jump in on his arguments, and I don't go after his "enemies". Can you come up with a reason to go after me except the people I ally with in game and ignore on the wiki?Jjames 01:49, 1 May 2006 (BST)

Ha! Man, I don't know how you can honestly say "WHY DO YOU GROUP ME WITH THEM?" right before "I ALLY WITH [them] IN GAME". Also, you do not ignore the Wiki. Otherwise you wouldn't be posting that, you see? You've got a history of bothering me specifically. You're going to deny it though, of course, because you guys think you can create a quick-sand of lies that will obscure everything until you come out looking like you've done nothing. Anyway, I've always mentioned it was my opinion. Taking quotes from me when I've been saying different times all throughout that it's my opinion is quite silly. If you didn't Grief me in-game all the time, and if you hadn't trolled me on the Wiki many times - THEN you could say you don't go after his/your enemies. As it stands that's pure balognaaaaa. -- Amazing 01:56, 1 May 2006 (BST)

I said I ignore them on the wiki, not I ignore the wiki. My question is why you take an in game issue and turn it into a wiki issue. Since I have never supported any of these people on the wiki, why group me with their actions on the wiki? You do realize that saying I have a history of bothering you is a statement of fact and not an opinion, right? One that you can provide no evidence of, one that is completely false? You posted on my talk page first, I responded that was the end of it. Then you drag me into arbitration with vague, unproven accusations. I tried to end it civily so that we could all focus on other things, and everytime you responded in a crass, glib manner. Even now you justify this behavior by dredging up slights from other posters. How can you call this trolling? I was civil to you at all times and was trying to resolve an arbitration that you started. Can you explain to me why you attack me other than the actions of other people? As for the quotes. These quotes show that you began by claiming I was an alt with out calrifying it was your opinion. When called on it, you claimed it was merely an opinion, and then later went back to making statements of fact. You can't make statements of fact and then say it's your opinion a couple of times. You must always clarify it as your opinion, or the statements of fact are still a violation of the rules. At least this is my interpretation of it, and i think a mod would agree.Jjames 02:12, 1 May 2006 (BST)

Oh, well. As long as you keep saying it was ME who brought this to the Wiki and not you, GANKBUSsers, Scinfaxi, etc. - you're just another liar who doesn't warrent much attention. Shouldn't you be... you know... studying? You want me to tag "This is an opinion and should not be regarded as a statement of fact. Thank you." onto the end of everything I say about you being Scinfaxi. Get with the real world. -- Amazing 03:32, 1 May 2006 (BST)

Once again, why lump me in with the other people in arbitration? I have never supported them on the wiki once. If I am lying about that, then just prove it. I honestly don't know what you're talking about. I have always behaved reasonably and civily towards you. As for clarifying accusations as an opinion, that's just common sense. If you don't, your statements are taken as facts. That's how the English language works and it violates the rules of the wiki. I don't see why you just can't refrain from it all together. I have made one rude comment towards you compared to countless ones against me from you. I don't support your enemies on the wiki and I've only talked to you respectfully. I just ask for the same respect I show you. Why can't you do that?Jjames 04:12, 1 May 2006 (BST)

Hahahaha! Oh man, thanks for giving me a laugh, I really needed one. Anyway, it's not agaist wiki regulations for me to accuse you of being Scinfaxi. ESPECIALLY when I go out of my way to mention time and again that's my opinion.

Well, forgoing the huge exchange you want to facilitate by acting, as Scinfaxi does, completely innocent and utterly shocked by such accusations... I will say simply this:

Anyone I have an arb case against can simply sign on for the "Don't speak to or of me in an uncivil tone on this Wiki, and I will do the same for you" proposition I put out.

You haven't. That says everything much better than I can. -- Amazing 04:30, 1 May 2006 (BST)

I wasn't aware of such a proposition. Link to it and I'll sign it. I feel as if I act that way on the wiki and in life anyway.Jjames 04:33, 1 May 2006 (BST)

As you can see, the page I've linked is more of a "proposal" at this point, but I have also said (toward the end of my successful arbitration case against Zaruthustra) that I am willing to take the "Leave me alone, and you won't hear from me at all." course of action with anyone who will agree to do it. -- Amazing 06:10, 1 May 2006 (BST)

Well I don't know how Prosperina's proposal would be workable as they already abondoned it as unenforcable, but i am still willing to make the same pledge right here. I will treat you civily (I beleive I already have) and i hope you will as well. I personally believe in treating people civily even when they don't treat you that way, but i can understand if you want it to be tit for tat. Since we can both agree to treat each other civily, why not start fresh and end all accusations on either end.Jjames 06:26, 1 May 2006 (BST)

sings odd couple theme song* Scinfaxi 07:22, 1 May 2006 (BST)

A Note on Wikigate

I have been avoiding the Wiki for a bit. Well, avoiding at times I'd usually check it, then checking at night. I see I am not supposed to converse with certain folks as per rulings (I agree with this!) but I checked Wikigate last, tonight, thinking "Well, I'm sure a couple rulings will severely piss me off, so let me get to those after I've looked at the rest of my Watch List." - I may have responded to someone before checking the cases. At this point I'm not sure, but I wanted to make note here that it was not intentional violation. I am going to go through my contribution history right now and delete anything that fits that bill (or strike it out if already replied to.) Since I was offering this 'deal' already, I think it's obvious I'd want to abide by rulings that made that 'deal' a reality. -- Amazing 06:37, 11 May 2006 (BST)

PROOF that you and all players from Iowa should be banned. I hereby ban you. Rasher 23:00, 11 May 2006 (BST)

Apologies as penalties

Let us discuss the inclusion of forced apologies in arbitration resolution. There seem to be those (Myself included) that do not like people being forced to apologize. A forced apology is no sort of apology at all. Should we cut this out of things? -Banana¯\(o_º)/¯Bear 03:33, 13 May 2006 (BST)

Discuss

Has this been a long-standing concern of yours? -- Amazing 03:44, 13 May 2006 (BST)

No, it was made an issue for me with all the arguing about apologies after you and Brent gave that dumb ban to Zar. That what you were looking for? -Banana¯\(o_º)/¯Bear 04:13, 13 May 2006 (BST)

Since you didn't voice concern about past instances when an apology was made to be issued, yes. Yes it is. -- Amazing 05:12, 13 May 2006 (BST)

	Oh Snap!
	Someone just got served!

I think they're lame and pointless. Apologies given by force are not a show of remorse. Instead, what we're talking about is someone desiring a form of public humiliation.--Jorm 03:51, 13 May 2006 (BST)

Exactly what i was trying to find words for in the discussion that sparked this. --Grim s-^Mod 04:17, 13 May 2006 (BST)

True that. MaulMachine 21:21, 13 May 2006 (BST)

What Jorm said is basically true. The whole Zar thing was ridiculous--Mpaturet 03:54, 13 May 2006 (BST)

Could we vote to stop having them in the future, and maybe for irony, demand an apology from all those who demanded apologies? -Banana¯\(o_º)/¯Bear 04:13, 13 May 2006 (BST)

Well, if it's really that much of a problem, perhaps we should make note of which arbitrators will add an appology as part of thier ruling, and then those that believe it to be a silly thing simply won't accept them as an Arbitrator. Thoughts? --Sirens^{T RR} 04:18, 13 May 2006 (BST)

This could make it even harder to find agreeable arbitrators, if it were blanket removed, no otherwise acceptable arbitrators would get tossed out, maybe? -Banana¯\(o_º)/¯Bear 06:00, 13 May 2006 (BST)

Yeah, I thought of that. As of now though, I'd be willing to arbitrate most cases. I think I've calmed down enough to where I can be unbiased. As a bonus, if I say anything about an appology, it'll be a suggestion, not a ruling. --Sirens^{T RR} 06:09, 13 May 2006 (BST)

Let's put forward a list anyone can contribute to, concerning actions arbitrators may not take. Cover all the bases. We can then open each point to a vote. -- Amazing 06:10, 13 May 2006 (BST)

Generally I agree, but such a list should be limited to seriously unfair things, like "Now post a picture of yourself nude. This is my ruling." Alternatively, something I was thinking of was that Arbitrators could post a heading in thier userspace of how they arbitrate, or plan to arbitrate. That way people can get an idea of what to expect when approving an arbitrator for a case. --Sirens^{T RR} 06:15, 13 May 2006 (BST)

There are times when it may be determined that one party was clearly in the wrong. When this happens an apology could/should/might be deemed necessary. Note: this apology is not always directed to the afronted party but rather to the community as a whole. i.e. If Bobyhomeboy creates a serious amount of drama, and is forced to finaly admit his responsibility, making an apology stating that "Yep, i was a dumbass..." to the community (and not necessarily to a particular injured party) is appropriate. Note: this isn't meant to embarass or humiliate Bobyhomeboy but to remove all doubt that the person acknowledges his/her responsibility for the issue. Humiliation should never be the point of an apology... Conndraka^{mod T W!} 11:27, 13 May 2006 (BST)

There are times when a disagreement may stir up a lot of dirt, and a lot of drama, and whose fault it is, I'm fairly certain, will always be subjective. Resolving something by saying, TrickusMark, stay of MarcusTrick's group page is fine, but when you add in a bit about saying your sorry to anyone, including the whole wiki, is unneccesary. Arbitration just needs to solve the issue, which apologizing doesn't really do, it just makes the aggrieved party possibly feel better, and the apologizing party probably feel worse. -Banana¯\(o_º)/¯Bear 18:17, 13 May 2006 (BST)

I'm not saying apologies are suited for all cases, but there are times when they are appropriate. Hell, I have even had to do a page and a half one on the desens boards due to a missunderstanding. If you are wrong, you're wrong and an apology can often clear up a LOT of crap, even when its not as sincere as it should be. Conndraka^{mod T W!} 19:12, 13 May 2006 (BST)

I think it would be fine for arbitrators to suggest someone apologize, and certainly, if someone didn't give one were one was due, their credibility would suffer. I would imagine that your page and a half on the board was given voluntarily, and I commend your maturity and ability to admit you were wrong, however, I still feel if someone will apologize, they can do it voluntarily, and it should be left at that. Bad enough apologies could eve stir up more trouble, such as if I was ordered to apologize and said this "I'm sorry Conn, <throws pie> Sorry I nailed you with that fucking pie!" I don't think it would help smooth anything over. -Banana¯\(o_º)/¯Bear 20:57, 13 May 2006 (BST)

Proposal for Arbitration reform

The Arbitration system is flawed. Quite clearly so. As such i propose a number of changes:

That people who put themselves up for arbitration must first pass a one week voting period where their suitability for the position is assessed by the community. This would firstly provide a mandate for those in the office. Secondly it would prevent the mindless expanding of the list by anyone who passes by and decides to add themselves to the list.
That arbitrators cannot come up with any punishment they want, but may only pick from a list of approved punishments from a list when punishments are decided. As such, arbitration would not be able to throw a user off of wiki, as is theoretically possible now (To be determined in discussion).
That users cannot specifically select an arbitrator. They create a list of five arbitrators, the other party also creates a list of five arbitrators. If neither list overlaps, then an arbitrator will be decided by majority vote from the moderators and the two involved parties selecting from both provided lists.
Both parties have a limited time in which to state and make their case. I propose three days from the time the second party to the conflict posts on the page.
Arbitrators that have not made an edit in a week are removed from the list of arbitrators (To remove inactives).
A list of resolution mechanisms that arent to be used (Such as forcing apologies).

This is NOT a vote. It is a discussion of each, and possible implimentations and limits of each. --Grim s-^Mod 11:04, 14 May 2006 (BST)

I agree with all of those points. Number 1 isn't really needed, though; if an arbitrator is obviously unfit to arbitrate, then he/she won't be picked. --Cyberbob240^{CDF - Arb - W!} 11:22, 14 May 2006 (BST)

The point is to limit the selection, prevent people new to the wiki from signing themselves up there (As i recall you yourself did way back when you arrived, not a strike against you however, just an observation), and to provide some small measure of authority for those who pass the vote, showing community trust in a persons impartiality and thus limiting valid objections to their arbitration. --Grim s-^Mod 11:38, 14 May 2006 (BST)

Hmm... you make a good point. Criticism withdrawn. --Cyberbob240^{CDF - Arb - W!} 11:51, 14 May 2006 (BST)

I don't like the majority vote for deciding an arbitrator in each individual case, too messy and time consuming. I also don't like the removal of anyone who hasn't made an edit in a week as that would mean that people who go on holiday or, for whatever reason, are unable to log in for a week get removed from the list. When I go to Australia for 4 weeks I don't want to be removed from the list just because I spend my holiday doing something other than sitting in front of my computer.--The General ^{W! Mod} 12:18, 14 May 2006 (BST)

You're going to Australia? Which cities? I recommend Melbourne. Avoid Sydney at all costs. :P --Cyberbob240^{CDF - Arb - W!} 12:23, 14 May 2006 (BST)

It'll be Brisbon, Sydney (probably not for very long as i've been there before), possibly Melbourne (can't remember what I planned). I'm going to have a look at my new flat near the Sunshine Coast.--The General ^{W! Mod} 12:43, 14 May 2006 (BST)

I doubt number 3 will work, I propose an exclusion of maximal 5, that way people can make sure they don't get a biased person against them without turning it into a heavy and time consuming selection process The arbitrator is then selected on bases who takes up the case first. If we extend number 1 backwards there is little chance that there are more then 5 unsuited candidates. With 4 we have a problem if they don't respond to the case. I propose a mandatory notification be made to the accused party and that the time limit becomes active after the first edit made by the accused party after recieving that notification. I'd expand the inactivaty period of point 5 to a month. As there are no choosen arbitrators anymore if he doesn't get excluded an inactive arbitrator wouldn't pick up the case anyway. Because 2 and 6 make each other obsolete I'm for removing 2 so that arbitrators may still find creative solutions to unusual situations that we haven't forseen. the rule that exclude them from certain mechanics would be enough to check them. --Vista 12:46, 14 May 2006 (BST)

I'm okay most of this; however, I'm curious to what the time limit should be to make your case, as well as the resolutation mechanisms that Arbitrators aren't allowed to use. Secondly, should there be a limit to the ammount of Arbitration cases that first a single user can open against multiple users (taking up most of the time of the Arbitration staff at one time) and secondly against a single user from multiple other users (taking up most of the time of the Arbitration staff and the time of most of that User's time as well) -Karlsbad 19:55, 14 May 2006 (BST) Each case is limited to one user or group, there is no need to limit the cases one can make at one time as the easier arbitration selection and time limit will prevent those cases from becoming another wiki-gate. 90% of the time there was spend on figuring out who could arbitrate and waiting for evidence. that is solved with the new sets of rules. I don't think a timelimit is nessersary, if you wait a month before bringing up the case the arbitrators are smart enough to know how to interpretate that. I assume that the "Have not made an edit" removal pertains to the entire Wiki, not just the Arbitration page, correct? -- Amazing 20:07, 14 May 2006 (BST)

Yes, it's just to remove those that are no longer present on the wiki so the list doesn't clutter up--Vista ^W! 21:27, 14 May 2006 (BST)

After reading Karlsbad comment I tinkered a bit more with it. So this is were we stand now.

additional rules for the aggrieved parties

Cases will only include the user or group that brings the case against one other user or one other group
Both parties have a 3 day limited in which to state and make their case. A mandatory notification will be made to the accused party when the case is brought up. The time limit becomes active after the first edit made by the accused party after recieving that notification.
The aggrieved parties can disallow up to 5 arbitrators each. the case will then be taken up by an allowed arbitrator on basis of first reaction. the disallowing of the arbitrators must be done in the first edit of both parties in the case.

additional rules for the arbitrators

That people who put themselves up for arbitration duty must first pass a one week voting period where their suitability for the position is assessed by the community. The current arbitrators will be retroactivly voted upon.
Arbitrators that have not made an edit in a month are removed from the list of arbitrators as inactive. They themselves may return their status to active without going through the conformation system again.
the resolution mechanisms on this list are not to be used:

Banning a user.
other resolution mechanisms yet to be decided upon in discussion.

--Vista ^W! 21:27, 14 May 2006 (BST)

Can breaking a arbitrator's decision be considered a form of vandalizing and therefore be put on the Vandal Banning page? --Karlsbad 00:12, 17 May 2006 (BST)

I don't like the wording of point 2 at all. Arbitrition isn't about punishing people, it's about setteling disputes. Has that really become so screwed up by the recent drama that we're calling Arbitrtion rulings punishments? --Sirens^{T RR} 21:33, 14 May 2006 (BST)

Niether did I, so that's why I made the shiny new and improved rules right above your post, if you can think of a better discription then accused party I'd be much happier even still--Vista ^W! 21:37, 14 May 2006 (BST)

Gah...I completely missed that.

Personnally, I think every arbitrator should have a list that's easilly accessible that show's thier particular style, as well as the things they will and won't do. Which reminds me, I need to go make such a page.... --Sirens^{T RR} 21:54, 14 May 2006 (BST)

I think this is a really good idea, tightening up the way in which arbitration works might really help stop the page from exploding the way it did with that last massive case. -Banana¯\(o_º)/¯Bear 00:22, 15 May 2006 (BST) Maybe streamlining arbitration isn't the issue -Banana¯\(o_º)/¯Bear 19:49, 16 May 2006 (BST)

I think this fill a lot of holes in the current arbitration sistem. Grim's suggestion tells people how they must arbitrate. Yours pretty much tells them how they must NOT arbitrate. It gives arbitrators more space for new ways to arbitrate. I think the 3 days limit is great, since more than that will only further any problems in between involved sides. --hagnat ^mod 20:41, 16 May 2006 (BST)

This seems like it de-wikifies the whole arbitration process. As it is, it seems to be a simple "we disagree, let's get someone we both think isn't a loser to settle this" and there's something very civil about that I find appealing. I mean, if people can't be trusted to handle their shit in a reasonably civil and mature way, isn't arbitration going to fail anyway? --Fusilliban

Anything will fail with unreasonable and unmature people, Arbitration under these rules also. The last case however showed the flaws we had in the system in dealing with certain conflicts whose participants actions fall between vandalism and good wikicitizenship, this is meant as to to find a way to bring resolution between unwilling parties that can be reasonable when prodded in the right direction. if you still simply want a to bring a case that is basically "we disagree, let's get someone we both think isn't a loser to settle this" nothing will stop you as the rules only add, not detract, the capabilaty of arbitration to resolve conflict.--Vista ^W! 21:50, 16 May 2006 (BST)

The fact that someone can be banned as the result of an arbitration case is sheer, utter bullshit. Until that gets solved, I don't think anything is going to change because there will always be crybaby bears who try and try and try (and eventually succeed, apparantly) to get people banned through arbitration rather than through vandal banning. Remove punishments of that degree and you remove most people's desire for arbitration. Of course, some people will say "but this defangs arbitration!" Well, fucking good. Arbitration isn't meant to be a police force; it's meant to be a place where two mature adults can discuss differences.--Jorm 22:01, 16 May 2006 (BST)

first thing I wanted to put under additional rules for the arbitrators: number 3. It one of the most important reasons that rule is in there. nobody should be able to get kicked out of the wiki other then by a moderator after due course on the vandal banning page.--Vista ^W! 22:18, 16 May 2006 (BST) and wrote it in--Vista ^W! 22:24, 16 May 2006 (BST)

These rules reduce the flexibility of arbitration, and therefore I don't buy that they "only add, not detract, the capabilaty of arbitration to resolve conflict." Now, these might be fine guidelines for people, and I'm possibly crediting potential Arbitrators with too much maturity/ability/wisdom/whatever, but a list of things you can't do is not gonna add capability. It might prevent people from making a few boneheaded mistakes, but it's not gonna add capability. Or, maybe I just totally misunderstood what you said, and am making a dork of myself. --Fusilliban

It's about capabilaty in the arbritrator, but capabilaty to resolve conflict. conflict is usually best resolved in a structed way, giving a clear indication of what can be expected of the mediation beforehand, handling all points of conflict and limiting the escape routes and backdoors. strange enough by limiting yourself beforehand, you get better results at the end. So the capabilaty to succesfully resovle conflict increases.--Vista ^W! 09:42, 17 May 2006 (BST)

Vandal banning is criminal law, whereas arbitration is tort law, to use an analogy. Therefore, by defintion, arbitration can get messier but is between two users both presenting evidence to a (theoretically) neutral judge, and is for solving personal issues as well as larger problems. Limiting arbitration to edit wars and things of the like is both short-sighted and unwise. I also don't agree with Jorm's 'anarchy = good', or Grim's 'let's write everything into stone with lists and tables'. Arbitration needs to be freeform, with very little (and only reasonable) restriction on punishments, or else you get cookie-cutter arbiters with the only differences being how often they agree with the accusers. -Wyn ^(talk!) 21:44, 16 May 2006 (BST)

So basically, the Arbitration page would become another "clubhouse" institution for the "popular kids" who are supported by the masses instead of their actual merit. Nice. -- Amazing 22:29, 16 May 2006 (BST)

That assumes that the popular club are not considered popular through any grade of merit in the first place, Amazing. Anyway, I disagree with the assertion to begin with, so why do you believe that it would happen in such a way, Amazing? --Karlsbad 00:12, 17 May 2006 (BST)

"Sorry, but I don't think you've contributed enough." - "Sorry, but you're involved in too much drama." - "Sorry, but I don't know who you are." - There's nothing wrong with the current "Elective Arbitrators, can be dismissed/chosen" system. (Just make it so that if you can't agree on an arbitrator between you, all dismissals are void. Problem solved.) Changing that to a vote just means the "what X said" majority will put a strangle-hold on the last area they don't overwhelmingly control. The Arbitration page has had ONE case in the past.. what, month? That case was "Wikigate" and it was one case split into seperate shards by a Moderator. The page is not over-used. It is not overwhelmed. It is not broken. It's simply annoying the people who want to control it or want to be immune from "ZOMG UNJUST!!!" reprocussions for bad behavior. (Really, the argument here is nothing more than "I did something bad, but there was no rule against it, no fair! Change the system!!") I'm sure that you and I could sit down and, together, collaborate on the exact list of people who would become 'approved' arbitrators, as well as a nice little list of people currently Arbitrators who would be "denied". And I don't know about you Karlsbad, but I'm not psychic. It's just obvious as to how it's intended to turn out. -- Amazing 00:24, 17 May 2006 (BST)

Yet people are free to dismiss an arbitrator that they don't know anyway; do you just want lip service to be paid to those that aren't the clubbish folk? And why not make the approval vote something low like 33%; so therefore even those that aren't popluar with a section of the wiki would still be able to get on. --Karlsbad 00:36, 17 May 2006 (BST)

Meh. There's no reason to inact a vote save for the desire to eject some current Arbs, not limited to myself. Nothing more to it. The sad fact is that there's only one place to report things that don't fit on the vandal page. Soon, there will be no place at all. Interesting note: I am almost willing to support these changes just to see the Wiki go down in flames so I can stand on the smoldering ashes and go: "Hmph." -- Amazing 00:50, 17 May 2006 (BST)

Which changes? The ones we are working on I thought were Vistas, as his are the most recent and the best. I personally want your opinion, as it provides a good and passionate point of view. --Karlsbad 01:00, 17 May 2006 (BST)

Hrm. Don't encourage me! Heh... I'll post a point-by-point response to the proposed changes under a new header later tonight. Hopefully that'll create a new, cleaner area for people to tell me I'm wrong. lol -- Amazing 01:04, 17 May 2006 (BST)

Arbitration is Arbitration, not Vandal Banning Lite

I think this is ignoring the real problem, which is that arbitration has completely lost its meaning. Arbitration is meant to settle edit wars, not enforce rules. For instance my wikigate case didn't have a single edit conflict, it was just things I did that didn't break the rules but that amazing didn't like. If we wanted civil discourse rules we would have made them. In fact people tried to make them and they failed. Now I see people putting up "how they'll arbitrate" pages like Cyberbob's (no offensive man but I'm going to use you as an example and wail on you for a while here). Theres all sorts of things about how he'll arbitrate harassment cases, even though harassment has been voted down as of so far. And he states that "I will rule that one party be officially warned, if the offence is deemed serious enough to warrant it." Thats tantamount to saying arbitrators are moderators without community approval. The third party is called that since he is meant to mediate point of view, not moderate the wiki. This system can hardly be called "arbitration" when its basically one user wielding it like a shiv against another. So please lets limit arbitration to edit wars, all else is shifting sand. --Zaruthustra-Mod 09:00, 16 May 2006 (BST)

Actually, that page was plagiarised from Mia, and is undergoing a lengthy editing process to tailor its content to my specific personality. But I see your meaning. One question, though: if users do have an argument that they can't settle themselves, who should they turn to? Wyndallin & I have a policy dealing with that in the works, but it'll be some time before it will be ready for submitting... --Cyberbob240^{CDF - Arb - W!} 09:12, 16 May 2006 (BST)

There will always be disputes. I think first and formost people need to suck it up and deal with their problems without using the moderation pages on a daily basis. Rules beget rules and drama begets drama. When we create these vast organs of litigation we just enable drama to continue, not silence it. If a certain behavior problem becomes serious we can pass rules about it, otherwise I think we shouldn't do anything. Remember, if its only one person it probably means its a people problem and not a rule problem. And you don't fix people with rules. --Zaruthustra-Mod 09:17, 16 May 2006 (BST)

You make a good point. How about many people vs. one person, as with Amazing? If it's allowed to rage unchecked, people will jump on the bandwagon and it'll get even worse - as with Amazing. There should be some kind of system equipped to deal with unsettleable disputes. --Cyberbob240^{CDF - Arb - W!} 09:22, 16 May 2006 (BST)

Honestly, more and more I'm coming to the conclusion that it shouldn't. Every time one of those issues went to litigation it got ten times worse. But that is neither here nor there. I'm saying if we are going to do that lets at least not do it here. Arbitration should be for edit conflicts, not accusations. --Zaruthustra-Mod 09:27, 16 May 2006 (BST)

I'm in full agreement with that. Maybe that Harassment policy could be the answer to my concerns... --Cyberbob240^{CDF - Arb - W!} 09:40, 16 May 2006 (BST)

No I disagree with you here zaru, Arbitration actually starts the point all the drama is begginign to get dealt with. the fact that it gets ten times worse is because the boil is getting lanced. We just have to make sure arbitration takes less time and is no longer so unbelievablable freeform. And that the arbitrator is no longer so just as unchecked as it is now. if we could have dealt with wiki-gate in a few days there would've been both less drama is we had know but also less drama then if we had done nothing.--Vista ^W! 10:50, 16 May 2006 (BST)

Then what is the natural thing for plaintiff's to do? Refuse to take part of course. Hell, the smart people already figured that out. We've effectively created a system that rewards users for ignoring it. And why shouldn't they? There is nothing for them to gain by being there. We could force people to use it or proceed without them, but then its just a crappy version of vandal banning based on non-existant rules.--Zaruthustra-Mod 17:33, 16 May 2006 (BST)

So? Thats why the set of rules is set up above to replace those non-existant rules and and give the arbitrators some legitamacy and limit them, This wiki could use a "vandal banning lite." although vandal banning is a really bad misnomer. this wiki needs a conflict resolution system. Where do you think edit wars come from? cause it aint the fact that they all like each other. "Edit war" arbitration is nice and all if you're a content-wiki, but this aint a real content wiki. It's a community wiki. Now we can close our eyes to that, wich would be inadvicable, or we can adapt to that. but what we can't do is change that fact.

Hell you just have to look at the monstrocity that was wikigate. that was already poisoning the wiki before it came close to arbitration. The moderators couldn't do shit to stop it. Had we had a 'vandal banning lite' it wouldn't needed to go through the shitty system we have now, it wouldn't be allowed to fester for weeks. Everybody more happy. Now either we can give the few mods we have more power to solve those things even though we tend to burn out after a month or two already. or we can keep it in the hands of the regular users. I know wich I like better. People will always be idiots. With your system there is nothing we can do to make sure they don't annoy the non-idiots off the wiki as well. with the currents system what we can do is so increasingly broken that the cure is almost as bad as the illness. Or we could try to actually solve the damn problem by improving what we were forced to use to something serviceable and fair. Arbitration lost its meaning because it was forced to fill a hole in the system of this wiki. Now you're correct to say that it's no longer what it was originally about. But appearently thats due to the fact that it was needed more to be what it is now instead of what it was. And because I seriously think that Jorms solution is, all though way more charming and appealing, neither workable or steeped in the reality of the bleeping human race, Lets just design something that'll work.--Vista ^W! 20:45, 16 May 2006 (BST)

Less policy. Less policing. Fewer rules. Fewer arbitration cases. Fewer vandal reports. More common sense. More information. More fun.--Jorm 09:13, 16 May 2006 (BST)

People = idiots. I like your idea better, but unfortuneatly common sense is not something the bulk of humanity is blessed with.--Vista ^W! 10:50, 16 May 2006 (BST)

Zar has summed it up very nicely. The Arbitration system is not set up to deal with the "You irk me, so I'm taking you to arbitration" type of deal it's been used for. --Lucero ^{U! T} 18:32, 16 May 2006 (BST)

so why not set it up so that it is? what stops us from changing it?--Vista ^W! 20:50, 16 May 2006 (BST)

Nothing at all. But wouldn't it be better to create a separate system for that instead of clogging up and trashing this one? Arbitration does have its purpose. This purpose is to settle edit wars. --Lucero ^{U! T} 21:06, 16 May 2006 (BST)

How many times was it purely used for that without some sort of underlying problem? It would be easier to adapt this one to be a generic conflict arbitration as it's more used like that then just for edit wars. That way it's suited to do both the heavy stuff and the odd edit conflict. This isn't really a content wiki, most guides and infopages work fine without needing this, suggestions page has it's own set of rules and little content. groups pages are mostly excempt of non-owner edits. All that is left is the NPOV part of the groups pages, and almost all conflict about that are personality driven and those would be better dealt with under the new system more then likely.--Vista ^W! 21:28, 16 May 2006 (BST)

Certainly there are usually underlying problems. But I suppose the question I should be asking is "why we do need to solve people's personal problems"? We've already held a vote and established that being nice is not a necessity on this wiki. Sure, it'd be great if we all were, but don't you think establishing a system to try and force people to do that is contrary to the wiki philosophy? --Lucero ^{U! T} 22:40, 16 May 2006 (BST)

why we do need to solve people's personal problems? because it tends to effect the wiki for the worse big time. There is a difference between "wiki" and anarchism, and it's called good faith This meant only to restore good faith. Not only wasn't the vote not on being nice but on being polite... (Big difference) But how would this force people to be 'nice' to each other?

Lose a case? Change the system! We'd need a place to report abusive an unethical behavior if the Arb page is no longer the spot for it. Let's not retry the case here by deminish the bad-faith behavior that was associated with your case. I can recall the Arb page being used for disagreements since.. what, October? Maybe after, but close. Now Zar loses a case, violates the runing, gets banned.. and it must change. -- Amazing 19:05, 16 May 2006 (BST)

No, we need people to act like adults which apparantly a huge percentage of you are incapable of doing. Handle your problems yourself, don't go crying to mom and dad every. goddamned. time. someone looks at you mean.--Jorm 19:09, 16 May 2006 (BST)

Well, you just made my case in your post there. A huge percentage can't act like adults? Well, then by all means let's leave that unchecked until it destroys the entire site. -- Amazing 19:11, 16 May 2006 (BST)

Zar's got a good idea here. People could do well to get some thicker skin, and stop letting people's internet burns ruin their fun. Wikigate was a big thing. It pretty much destroyed arbitration for far too long, Zar bringing it up is no big thing. Another issue I find, is that there is a big difference between the powere of an arbitration ruling given by a mod and a standard user, as mod's can use mod power to enforce arbitration rulings, such as when Brent used a ban for an arbitration case. If, say Cyberbob had dished out that ruling, he wouldn't have the ban power backing it up. I don't know what to do about that last one, but if people toughened up and stopped leaning so heavily on arbitration and moderation, we'd all be better off. -Banana¯\(o_º)/¯Bear 20:01, 16 May 2006 (BST)

Protecting/preserving the Wiki's overall usability and such should be the ONLY goal of the Mod team. I don't know if "Get over it" should be the reaction to Wiki-destroying drama, flaming, etc. Wikigate was brought about at the suggestion of a Moderator, and was Split into a HUGE mess by another Moderator. Are we saying the Mods don't know what they're doing? -- Amazing 20:05, 16 May 2006 (BST)

The wiki's usability is not affected by a group or user being mean on most pages, for instance, PQN changing my userpage to say "That's why I did you wife" has no effect on the wiki's usability. PQN deleting pages does have an effect on the wiki's usability. If all PQN did was edit my userpage, I would never take him, to vandal banning. I won't get into the wikigate can of worms, but I will say that it was, from day one, a confusing mess. -Banana¯\(o_º)/¯Bear 20:10, 16 May 2006 (BST)

Not reporting vandalism is your choice, to be sure - but if that person does not have reprocussions for wrong actions, they will probably do it again, and at that point they get their 'first' warning. It's a process that requires involvement from the aggrieved party, for sure, but saying you're not willing to report a violation of the rules does not affect anyone else's ability to make their own decision about that. If the Arbitration page is de-toothed for no reason other than someone's dislike of their ban, the Wiki will decrease in quality. As you've seen yourself - folks create problems under the current system without fear of a ban. Imagine how widespread it would become if there was absolutely no chance of reprocussions. -- Amazing 20:14, 16 May 2006 (BST)

Please set aside your personal vendettas and notice what people are saying, Amazing. This problem has been brewing for quite a while and if you'll notice, Zaruthustra is not the only person voicing concerns. --Lucero ^{U! T} 20:43, 16 May 2006 (BST)

I'd be interested to see what's led to this, so I can see that it's not just one person's dislike of a ruling they got banned for, and the following "Me too" wagon-jumping. Links? -- Amazing 22:12, 16 May 2006 (BST)

Certainly. The arbitration case of you vs. 'STER is a good start. You'll note that nowhere is there mention of edit wars, just personal insults and the like. I think it should be obvious to anyone who cares that this is not what Arbitration was designed to handle. The issue comes up again in you vs. Karlsbad where it is said that "this is not an issue for arbitration". Not to pick on you (you just seem to have the best examples), but Wikigate mess also serves as an ample example of the misuse of Arbitration. --Lucero ^{U! T} 22:29, 16 May 2006 (BST)

It's also a reaction to the discussion above it, Zaruthustra has a different view then me and Grim S on it and states it here. And it isn't markedly different from his earlier stated positions before on this subject from for the ruling in your case with him. But I believe this discussion is going off-topic and nowhere fast. lets just leave it here shall we?--Vista ^W! 22:35, 16 May 2006 (BST)

Lucero - I guess I just have a diff. idea of the system since I've been recommended to use it for flame wars and harassment by Moderators, dating back to my first experiance with the page around Oct. 05 - as suggested by a Mod. Seems to me that if Mods suggest using the Arb page for such things, either they're wrong or you are. If it turns out the Mods were wrong, an Abuse page will need to be set up. -- Amazing 00:33, 17 May 2006 (BST)

You still have not addressed the issue of how the Wiki's usability is affected by a user or group being rude or mean on most pages. The Wiki, if we look at it as a place to gather information about UrbanDead, is not going to be affected if I or any other user were to log onto any talk page and say "ZARATHUSTRA = FAGOT" or "GRIMS S IS ZERG RUSH KEKEKE!" or "AMAZING CNR!" or some such nonsense.-Banana¯\(o_º)/¯Bear 20:24, 16 May 2006 (BST)

I have addressed the issue. Who uses the Wiki? All of us. If one person is unable to use the service in the capacity they should be able to, then the usablity has been affected. It's quite simple, y'dig? -- Amazing 22:09, 16 May 2006 (BST)

Being insulted doesn't stop anyone from using the wiki in any way. Unless their skin's so soft that when someone throws harsh word's at them they are wracked with sobs and unable to type coherently. It is simple, you're just wrong. -Banana¯\(o_º)/¯Bear 22:47, 16 May 2006 (BST)

Sorry, but you're ignoring the fact that I can't do much of anything here without people trying to remove, vandalize, or flame it. That means you're probably not going to be straight in this discussion, and I don't need to go around and around with you anymore. -- Amazing 00:20, 17 May 2006 (BST)

I know you get a lot of flak on the wiki. However, if someone vandalizes what you post, take them to vandal banning, if people delete what you post, take them to vandal banning, if people flame what you post, move it to the talk page or just leave it. Having your posts ruined is really what vandal banning is for. You're allowed in vandal banning now aren't you?-Banana¯\(o_º)/¯Bear 01:15, 17 May 2006 (BST)

I guess I'm looking at history here. I was banned from the Vandal Report page once, because I was reporting people for deleting/editing my text too often . People may see this as a simple rule change, but to me it's a removal of the one place I've been "pushed" into posting in order to try and regain some of my usage of this resource. I don't understand how people can say "Grow a thicker skin" or "settle it yourself" when anyone has to deal with such obvious abuse that it would cause said person to be perminently banned from any other "forum". This isn't a forum, it's a wiki - But in effect it is has become like a forum - without rules on behavior outside of vandalism.

I find it more than a little perplexing that some folks are arguing in support of behavior that goes beyond anything I've ever done.. and I'm the one that's had multiple attempts to eject him from the site. The minute I start taking on the speech patterns and attitudes of Jorm or Grim or any of the other highly-insulting or abusive folks I won't mention, I'll be perma-banned. -- Amazing 01:39, 17 May 2006 (BST)

So you are trying to say that the people who do attempt to sabatoge your wiki usage happen to also agree philosophically with being insulting to you as well? If so, shouldn't insults be evidence of editing bias and bad-faith leanings in an arbitration case rather than a reason to open one? --Karlsbad 00:36, 17 May 2006 (BST)

Unsurprisingly, I agree with Zaru here. It does seem that people are more interested in forcing others into conflicts, purely to win, and that wasn't what Arbitration was for. Every time someone has intervened in a conflict on this wiki without the approval of both parties, the result has been an escalation of conflict. Arbitration is not supposed to be the wiki's Legal Court. What it's supposed to be is a place where two people at conflict can go to get a third-party opinion on the matter. Personally, if two people want to fight, then I say let them go right ahead. As long as what they're doing isn't damaging the wiki, I don't see why anyone should care. I'd say that if two parties don't want to go to Arbitration, no issue. When/if one of the parties do something that counts as Vandalism, then let the sysops get involved. No earlier. We're not here to enforce niceness on people. If people want to be bastards to someone else, fuck it. Let them. If they damage the wiki in the process, then it's time to get involved. -- Odd Starter ^{talk • Mod • W!} 03:14, 17 May 2006 (BST)

Actually it ins't time to get involved when they begin damaging the wiki in the process, it 's time to step in right before they start damaging the wiki. Besides how can we moderaters step in? we can only respond to vandalism. If people want to be bastards to someone else isn't vandalism so we can't do shit about that even if it damages the wiki. So yeah while we don't need a court we do need a better place where two people at conflict can go to get a third-party opinion on the matter because this one doesn't work, hasn't worked and won't work. we need an effective and better conflict resolution place, and we don't have it now, so why not make one?--Vista ^W! 09:56, 17 May 2006 (BST)

I'm not necessarily saying that we shouldn't have one - more that we shouldn't have one which requires sysop intervention in order for it to work effectively. I am aware that the system we have isn't working, and having some sort of conflict resolution system does seem to be needed. But I'd like much better not to fall in to the trap that we have now, that people see a conflict resolution system with sysop backing, and think that this means that they can throw any problem they have and let the sysops resolve it, instead of attempting to resolve it themselves.

To be really honest, I think the most ill-thought out component of the whole arbitration system was the entire "going against judgement incurs vandalism consequences". It entirely changed the entire point of the system, and did make it a court. Any change to the system, I think, should try to walk away from that. -- Odd Starter ^{talk • Mod • W!} 10:55, 17 May 2006 (BST)

It will always involve some involvement from us. Removing the automatic 24hour banning when it the agreement gets breached is a good idea. But removing the backing of the sysops totally isn' t. How about considering any breaking of the agreement bad faith? anyway as the new rules will add more legitimacy to arbitration making our role as backers far less needed but not redudant. It still needs work I agree, so any idea to reduce sysop involvement more without reducing it's effectiveness?--Vista ^W! 11:28, 17 May 2006 (BST)

Am I really the only person who thinks "If people want to be bastards to someone else, fuck it. Let them." isn't a good Mod policy...? If I am, let me know... -- Amazing 04:01, 17 May 2006 (BST)

this is a wiki Amazing, mods are nothing more than regular user who can delete, protect and ban if the community approves it. --hagnat ^mod 04:32, 17 May 2006 (BST)

Well, there are many differences between the tone, nature, and spirit of this wiki in constrast with others. -- Amazing 04:53, 17 May 2006 (BST)

The question is, is this because of sysop interference with other's affairs, or the lack of which? -- Odd Starter ^{talk • Mod • W!} 09:12, 17 May 2006 (BST)

I think it's sysop interference. The fact that there is actual sysop response to tattletale-ing and "he was mean to me" nurtures the behavior so that people expect it and eventually demand it. The question "how am I to respond when someone is a jackass to me?" has an easy answer: "don't bow down to it and be an adult." However, past precedent has made this nigh impossible; everything must be litigious. Remove the ability for litigation and the problem will work itself out: the people who are truly asshats will end up getting banned and the crybabies will either shut up or leave. --Jorm 10:07, 17 May 2006 (BST)

Well, the question is, is people being bastards to someone else really going to hurt the wiki? If it is, and in clear, tangible ways, then there's probably a need to legislate against it. However, if someone's being a bastard to someone else, but that bastardry isn't doing any harm to the wiki itself, why the hell should we get involved? Do we get involved with every emnity between people in real life? Hell, let's make the analogy more succinct. Do building security/management get involved with every argument that happens in a building? Of course not. The only time they get involved is if it's going to adversely affect the building.

What I'm saying here is that the attitude of people deciding that their arguments and problems must be the problem of the wiki, and thus the problem of the sysops, might be unfounded. For the vast majority of cases, there should be no need for sysop intervention in the event of an argument between users. These arguments are unfortunate, but they should not be our concern. People insulting other people should not be our problem. The only time it should be a problem is when the insults begin to directly impact the wiki. We are not forum moderators. This should not be our fucking problem. We should not have to be the teacher on the playground that has to separate the fighting kids. -- Odd Starter ^{talk • Mod • W!} 09:12, 17 May 2006 (BST)

Extraneous Discussion

This is also a violation of the "stay away from Amazing" stipulation in the decision against Zar. He pretty much slams me right away in his statement up there. It's pathetic to see a Moderator say: "I did amoral things but they weren't against written rules." -- Amazing 19:19, 16 May 2006 (BST)

See? This is exactly what I'm talking about. You come across like a fucking crybaby fucking bear here. Amazing the tattletale. Amazing the whiner. Whatever. Solve your problems yourself, you petulant little creep and stop dragging them into the rest of the fucking wiki. Grow up. Act like a fucking adult.--Jorm 19:22, 16 May 2006 (BST)

Also - STOP. FUCKING. RE-EDITING. YOUR. GODDAMNED. COMMENTS. EVERY. THIRTY. SECONDS.--Jorm 19:22, 16 May 2006 (BST)

Look back on who brought me into this with 'telling a tale' about someone else. Look back on who mentioned their ZOMG UNFAIR loss in an arb case. Jorm - Think before you speak, because I'm not the one who looks like a hot-head idiot of the two of us. I don't think I said anything to warrent your total ass-fuck batshit insane ranting up there. I've spoken as an adult would. You have not. -- Amazing 19:25, 16 May 2006 (BST)

I also like how reporting a possible Arbitration violation is 'whining'. If it was someone else reporting me, the tune would be a little different. ;) -- Amazing 19:31, 16 May 2006 (BST)

Swear to god, a fuckin' crybaby bear. Growing up, there were a bunch of old toys in my grandmother's house. One of them was this little plastic bear on wheels you could pull around called Crybaby Bear. Everytime you pulled it, it would make this pathetic mewling sound. This is how I imagine you, Amazing. Your father should be proud of the man you've become. --Jorm 19:38, 16 May 2006 (BST)

And your dad wanted to raise a flame-baiting troll...? Hey, I'm not one to judge your traditions. (Anyone else see the irony in this pathetic jackass telling others to act like adults?) Anyway, the Arbitration page is not used anywhere CLOSE to daily. This is all a bunch of alarmist baloney with the intent of preventing further action against bad behavior. I've said my part here, and Jorm - Sorry, but you won't goad me into talking to you anymore. Try someone else. -- Amazing 19:41, 16 May 2006 (BST)

We're having a policy discussion here. If anybody has any comments about the policy, or how to improve the policy, or problems with the policy, go ahead and post them. Otherwise leave. Note that this does not include my motivations for the policy, how much you hate me, or how much amazing sucks. --Zaruthustra-Mod 19:57, 16 May 2006 (BST)

I made my comments about your proposal and your reason for the proposal, as you can see. Sorry, but when you open something to discussion, you do not then get to tell people not to discuss your reasons. -- Amazing 20:05, 16 May 2006 (BST)

First of all, no. This is in no way violating the arbitration ruling on your case against zar. He didnt made a single comment about YOU, he made comments about your arbitation case with him. And, as far as i know, you are not Amazing vs. Zaruthustra. Second, this. What you just did. Claiming someone is violating a rule or harrassing you, for no good reason. Thats trolling. --hagnat ^mod 20:46, 16 May 2006 (BST)

"it was just things I did that didn't break the rules but that amazing didn't like." is a bold statement about my character and the validity of my case/concerns. Weather or not it will be inforced, that's a violation of the ruling to stop f*ckn' attacking me/my personal character. (Which I am also expected to do for him as well.) And no, voicing my concern about a possible violation of an arb case is not trolling. That's really silly. I once again refer you to the old "Who started attacking whose credibility?" question. I'd appreciate it if you'd answer it and do not make false accusations. At no point is mentioning someone's blatant violation of a ruling "trolling". -- Amazing 22:09, 16 May 2006 (BST)

But everything he said was true. He didn't break any written rule of the wiki, he just did things you didn't like. You tried to get him for misconduct, and that didn't work, and you took him to arbitration. -Banana¯\(o_º)/¯Bear 22:42, 16 May 2006 (BST)

Rules are established by the Mod team. In the past the Mod team has moved to discourage people from posting off-wiki personal things on this site. Therein lies the violation. Aside from that the ToS of Whois.net states you will not spread the info found thereon. In fact, when I posted the info from an IP trace of someone CHANGING MY PASSWORD, I was made to alter what I had written. Now Zar takes personal info UNRELATED to the wiki, NOT gotten from an IP trace but rather an off-site search specifically for my info, and posts it - and people are calling "unfair" when he's reprimanded. -- Amazing 00:18, 17 May 2006 (BST)

ERRRRRRNT, thank you for playing. The ToS of WHOIS records only applies to the use of said information for mass-volume emails, pulling down the entire database for that end, and reselling the WHOIS data. You are wrong, and don't try to tell me you know better, because I, personally, am a domain registrar and am fully and completely versed in what is and is not legal with regards to WHOIS information. Should I so choose, I could post everything about you right here and you could do nothing about it. Trust me: I make money at this.--Jorm 00:29, 17 May 2006 (BST)

"The compilation, repackaging, dissemination or other use of this data is expressly prohibited..."

This is the part where I really wish my grandparents had a Know-It-All Bear whose ego grew as you pulled it by a string. Maybe that'll come up at some point in your job and you'll say a silent 'thank you' to me. Besides which, I could do something about it since Mods have said that you cannot post personal info/images from off the wiki. -- Amazing 00:40, 17 May 2006 (BST)

@@ Line 634: / Line 634: @@
 :::::Please set aside your personal vendettas and notice what people are saying, Amazing.  This problem has been brewing for quite a while and if you'll notice, Zaruthustra is ''not'' the only person voicing concerns. --[[User:Lucero Capell|Lucero]] <sup>[[Project UnWelcome|U!]] [[User_talk:Lucero Capell|T]]</sup> 20:43, 16 May 2006 (BST)
 ::::::I'd be interested to see what's led to this, so I can see that it's not just one person's dislike of a ruling they got banned for, and the following "Me too" wagon-jumping. Links? -- [[User:Amazing|Amazing]] 22:12, 16 May 2006 (BST)
-:::::::Certainly.  The [[Moderation/Arbitration/Archive#Amazing_vs._.27STER|arbitration case of you vs. 'STER]] is a good start.  You'll note that nowhere is there mention of edit wars, just personal insults and the like.  I think it should be obvious to anyone who cares that this is ''not'' what Arbitration was designed to handle.  The issue comes up again in [[Moderation/Arbitration/Archive#Amazing_vs_Karlsbad|you vs. Karlsbad]] where it is said that "this is not an issue for arbitration".  Not to pick on you (you just seem to have the best examples), but [[Moderation/Arbitration#Wikigate|Wikigate mess]] also serves as an ample example of the misuse of Arbitration.  --[[User:Lucero Capell|Lucero]] <sup>[[Project UnWelcome|U!]] [[User_talk:Lucero Capell|T]]</sup> 22:29, 16 May 2006 (BST)
+:::::::Certainly.  The [[UDwiki:Moderation/Arbitration/Archive#Amazing_vs._.27STER|arbitration case of you vs. 'STER]] is a good start.  You'll note that nowhere is there mention of edit wars, just personal insults and the like.  I think it should be obvious to anyone who cares that this is ''not'' what Arbitration was designed to handle.  The issue comes up again in [[Moderation/Arbitration/Archive#Amazing_vs_Karlsbad|you vs. Karlsbad]] where it is said that "this is not an issue for arbitration".  Not to pick on you (you just seem to have the best examples), but [[Moderation/Arbitration#Wikigate|Wikigate mess]] also serves as an ample example of the misuse of Arbitration.  --[[User:Lucero Capell|Lucero]] <sup>[[Project UnWelcome|U!]] [[User_talk:Lucero Capell|T]]</sup> 22:29, 16 May 2006 (BST)
 ::::::::It's also a reaction to the discussion above it, Zaruthustra has a different view then me and Grim S on it and states it here. And it isn't markedly different from his earlier stated positions before on this subject from for the ruling in your case with him. But I believe this discussion is going off-topic and nowhere fast. lets just leave it here shall we?--[[User:Vista|Vista]] <sup>[[Project Welcome|W!]]</sup> 22:35, 16 May 2006 (BST)