UDWiki talk:Administration/Arbitration: Difference between revisions

From The Urban Dead Wiki
Jump to navigationJump to search
 
(115 intermediate revisions by 34 users not shown)
Line 3: Line 3:


=General Discussion=
=General Discussion=
==[[A/A]]==
I've been using the A/A link (and A/VB etc etc) for the best part of 6 months and i only just realised that A/A = AA. Not surprising considering the lowlifes we get around these parts...--{{User:J3D/ciggy}} 13:44, 22 May 2008 (BST)


==How to start a case==
== Text Change ==
How would one start an arbitration case against another group of wiki users? I will name specific names if required. This will be myself (NOT the DHPD) vs every proclaimed member of the dead. Its time for this to stop. Of course, it'll take an arbitrator not affiliated with the dead or sensitive to their martyr mentality but I'm convinced someone out there can handle a case like this. --{{User:Showcase/sig}} 17:05, 9 April 2008 (BST)
:dear god. No. --{{User:Hagnat/sig}} 18:28, 9 April 2008 (BST)
::If you're talking about starting a case against ''the dead'' or those Something Awful guys, I realy wouldn't bother, theyve made it fairly clear that they don't trust the arbitration thing, and don't want it on more than one occasion, so they'd do their best not to have one. It's not a unique veiwpoint, there's plenty of other users who don't trust it either, and the SA lot do seem kinda paranoid that everybody is out to get them. Even if you did somehow get them to agree, finding an arbitrator would be another problem, I can't see many people wanting to touch the case.--{{User:Seventythree/Sig}} 18:29, 9 April 2008 (BST)
:And what would be your objective? Because if you want an arbitration case about how the content on a single page or subject should be shaped you only the specific editors you have the conflict with should be involved. But if it's about an general editing restriction there would be little chance it would be honerated as it would be clearly against the good faith rule. If so, forget about it. It would be nothing more then dramawhoring.--<small><span style="border: 1px solid MediumSeaGreen">[[User:Vista|'''<span style="background-color: Ivory; color:Black">&nbsp;Vista&nbsp;</span>''']][[Signature_Race|<span style="background-color: MediumSeaGreen; color: Ivory ">&nbsp;+1&nbsp;</span>]]</span></small> 18:36, 9 April 2008 (BST)
::Good Faith rule? This group isn't the least bit worried about good faith? since day one they have done nothing but create bad faith. Is there no recourse? --{{User:Showcase/sig}} 20:51, 9 April 2008 (BST)
:::The group exist of out of a couple of hundred individuals at least. And you want us to target them all for the actions of what, five users? on this wiki. How fair. Nope, we'll subject them to the same rules as everybody else. And those rules assume individual responsibility, not group responsibility.--<small><span style="border: 1px solid MediumSeaGreen">[[User:Vista|'''<span style="background-color: Ivory; color:Black">&nbsp;Vista&nbsp;</span>''']][[Signature_Race|<span style="background-color: MediumSeaGreen; color: Ivory ">&nbsp;+1&nbsp;</span>]]</span></small> 17:44, 10 April 2008 (BST)
::::I did say I would name specific individuals if it was necessary...maybe some day. --{{User:Showcase/sig}} 18:05, 10 April 2008 (BST)
:Also, good luck finding an arbitrator willing to take the case. -- {{User:Iscariot/Signature}} 18:44, 9 April 2008 (BST)
::I'll do it. I'll arbitrate if both parties want me. -- {{User:Krazy_Monkey/sig}} 21:02, 9 April 2008 (BST)
:::meh. I appreciate the offer but I've decided not to bother. Ultimately, I don't think anything I do will result in what really should be done with these jokesters. On the SA forums, if we went there with total asshatery that included spamming and trolling, we would be permabanned in just a few days. Why they expect to be allowed to run rampant here is beyond me. --{{User:Showcase/sig}} 23:19, 9 April 2008 (BST)
::::For unfunny trolling, you would be banned in the first day.  --{{User:Gardenator/sig}} 01:21, 28 June 2008 (BST)


==Arbitration==
in '''Current Arbitrators'''
What do Arbitrators do exactly? I'm interested in volenteering but I'd like to know a bit more about what they do. -- [[User:Krazy Monkey|Krazy Monkey]] <sup>[[Project Welcome|W!]]</sup> 21:20, 11 June 2006 (BST)
:The following users have placed their hand up as users who are willing to be contacted to act as an Arbitrator. The role of Arbitrator is not restricted to the Administration Team; any user can be contacted as an Arbitrator''', even those not listed below,''' and use this page for the arbitration, so long as both parties agree to the Arbitrator. Users who wish to place their hand up as an Arbitrator should place their name below on the list, using {{CodeInline|<nowiki>*{{usr|YourUserPage}}</nowiki>}}
:When a few people have a problem that they can't agree to a solution on, they take it to Arbitrition.  There, an arbitrator is agreed on you handle the situation.  The Arbitrator looks at both sides of the issue, and tries to find a solution.  There are many different styles of doing this. --{{User:Mia Kristos/sig}} 21:23, 11 June 2006 (BST)
Change in bold. --<small>[[User:Hagnat|hagnat]]</small> 19:51, 18 June 2011 (BST)
:[http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php?title=UDWiki%3AAdministration%2FArbitration%2FIntro&action=historysubmit&diff=1908199&oldid=1479264 I changed it], as it is simply an explaination the current situation <small>-- [[User:Boxy|boxy]] 10:26, 20 June 2011 (BST)</small>


== An index? ==
==DON'T BE FUCKING UP MY PAGE==
Anyone else think it would be worthwhile having an index of precedents from previous arbitration cases?  Researching what past arbitrators have ruled is kind of time-consuming at the moment, and that's with only four archives to go through. Just a thought. -- {{User:Atticus Rex/Sig}} 21:36, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
Seriously. What did you all do to arbies?!?--[[¯\(°_o)/¯|<span style="color: DarkMagenta"> ¯\(°_o)/</span>]][[User_talk:Suicidalangel|<span style="color: DarkTurquoise">¯</span>]] 02:08, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
:If you want to make a page called UDWiki:Administration/Arbitration/Precedents and do just that, feel free.  But don't expect people to do it for you.  &ndash; [[User:Nubis|Nubis]] 21:38, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
::Hell, we should do it for every Admin page. --{{User:Axe27/Sig}} 22:37, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
:::It's not a bad idea... will take some work, and those willing to do it.--{{User:AnimeSucks/Sig}} 22:44, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
::::I'm willing to tackle it, but the layout is gonna take some thought so it's comprehensive without getting so bogged down that people can't easily find what they're looking for.  Dunno why Nubis thinks I'm just showing up here to place orders... maybe he just doesn't know me. :D -- {{User:Atticus Rex/Sig}} 01:00, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
:::::Maybe something like [[Frequently_Suggested#The_List|this]], it seems too work, at least a little, with listing suggestions precedents.--<small>[[User:Karek|Karek]]<sup><font face="Monotype Corsiva">[[User:Karek/ProjDev/OmegaMap|maps?!]]</font></sup></small> 01:39, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
This probably would be useful to have so that people can see what the reasoning was that people applied to similar cases in the past. Of course, precedents shouldn't be binding - arbitration is a pretty easy system to game, you just need two friends willing to pretend to be "neutral arbiter" and "the other party". --[[User:Toejam|Toejam]] 13:01, 19 November 2007 (UTC)


==Archive==
==Punishments for violations==
The first archive seems to be missing content.--<small>[[User:Karek|Karek]]<sup><font face="Monotype Corsiva">[[User:Karek/ProjDev/OmegaMap|maps?!]]</font></sup></small> 10:58, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
{{quote|Boxy|Arbies violations are a day ban anyway. "As a note, by requesting an Arbitration, all parties are thus obliged to accept the outcome of the Arbitration. Not doing will be considered Vandalism, and such vandalism attempts will be treated as if the vandal has already received two warnings" -- boxy talk • teh rulz 12:43 8 July 2009 (BST)}}
:Strangely, the code is visible with View Source. --[[User:Toejam|Toejam]] 18:28, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
Just a question regarding that Arbies Vandalism note that Boxy quoted on an A/VB case. It seems to be saying that '''all''' such vandal cases will be treated as a 1 day ban regardless of any other circumstances... is that actually what it means, Boxy goes on to say its merely to point out a minimum punishment but if that is the case it means you automatically jump up 3 steps for what might be a petty infringement? If its a one off violation would it not be fairer to treat it separately from the actual VB escalations unless it is also Vandalism in the traditional sense?  --[[User:Honestmistake|Honestmistake]] 13:06, 9 July 2009 (BST)
::This has happened with my first talk page archive too. It's really weird... --{{User:Hagnat/sig}} 17:12, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
:Why? If someone already has a bunch of active (ie unstruck) escalations on their record I don't think it's at all unfair to punish them harder for violating an arbitration ruling than someone who might only have a few or none. --[[User:Cyberbob240|Cyberbob]] 13:41, 9 July 2009 (BST)
:::If you reupload the code it should fix it.--<small>[[User:Karek|Karek]]<sup><font face="Monotype Corsiva">[[User:Karek/ProjDev/OmegaMap|maps?!]]</font></sup></small> 21:09, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
::Its potentially unfair because we have had some pretty poor Arbies decisions in the past and breaching them should not carry such a harsh punishment as a 3 step escalation. I know in most such cases the Sysops would probably find '''not vandalism''' but why even have the threat? Also even in clear cut cases like the MisterGame one where some sysops actually said his action was '''vandalism''' only because of the Arbies ruling it would seem unfair to push someone to step 3 in one single bound. Obviously MG got only a single escalation as this took him to the usual 1 day ban anyway but I just think that taking a clean sheet to 3 escalations for an arbies dispute is a little OTT. I suggested recording it separately but even just making it clear for future reference that each instance should never actually count as more than 1 escalation for recording purposes would make it a lot fairer for clean sheet offenders.
::As for punishing repeat vandals more harshly, thats really a different point and I don't really disagree with you on it in general but would point out that in a heated disagreement it would be easy to go from a 1 day warning to an outright ban through petty and stupid stubbornness resulting from a bad arbies ruling... As such limiting it to a separate VB track might have merit.--[[User:Honestmistake|Honestmistake]] 13:59, 9 July 2009 (BST)
:::As always you are more than free to suggest a modification to the arbitration punishment policy in A/PD. I'd like to point out that losing it in the heat of the moment is no excuse. This is the Internet, and you can (should) always get up and walk away from your computer if you're getting RELLY ANGERY. As for bad rulings, if a ruling is truly ''bad'' (this does not include simply "against you") there is the option of having it repealed with another arbitration case. This pretty much only works if the ruling is like on a Nalikill scale of bad - the idea is that you pick your arbitrator so by and large you have to just suck it up. --[[User:Cyberbob240|Cyberbob]] 14:09, 9 July 2009 (BST)
::::It's not really a massive problem; I don't remember it ever causing serious drama; so a policy would probably be overkill at this stage. I think a sensible discussion and perhaps minor clarification to the existing rule is all that is needed... The instant ban thing just seems more like it should be a way to enforce your "stepping away from the keyboard" than an actual Vandalism ban (at least for a first infraction) and for a single (possibly minor) thing to potentially need 3 de-escalations is more punishment than i think would likely be merited. --[[User:Honestmistake|Honestmistake]] 14:56, 9 July 2009 (BST)
:::::Perhaps it could be recorded on A/VD as the next escalation (a warning if it's a first offense), with a note that it is an arbitration violation and carries a min. 24hr ban regardless <small>-- [[User:Boxy|<span style="color: Red">boxy</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Boxy|<span style="color: Red">talk</span>]] • [[The Rules|teh rulz]]</sup> 21:29 9 July 2009 (BST)</small>
::::::That seems fair... its really only the potential to go from 0 to 3 escalations that I think is unfair so modified report would easily avoid the problem.--[[User:Honestmistake|Honestmistake]] 00:33, 10 July 2009 (BST)
:::::::Wait. You think that if you have 1 or 0 warnings and you violate a ruling that your warnings count is magically filled up as well as the ban? Because that's not the case at all. --[[User:Cyberbob240|Cyberbob]] 02:07, 10 July 2009 (BST)
:::::::Yeah, my belief is that it would increment "Warning Status" up one notch, with a 24 hour ban, which would also be noted on Vandal Data. If that's not the idea being suggested, I like mine better. --{{User:Darth Sensitive/Sig}} 02:13, 10 July 2009 (BST)
::::::::Actually thats exactly what I am getting at, if someone with 0 or 1 previous warnings violates an arbies and is slapped with an Vandal Ban will it get recorded as 1 warning or a 24 hour ban with a note to clarify that it was a result of an Arbies case? If not and its just logged as a 24 hour ban then the next infringement could well be treated as a 4th warning/escalation (48 hours?) I don't even know if its ever happened that someone with such a clean sheet has received a ban this way (and I am not prepared to trawl through the records to check) but I just wanted to clarify that it wouldn't happen that way. --[[User:Honestmistake|Honestmistake]] 09:34, 10 July 2009 (BST)
:::::::::At the moment, it's recorded as a 24hr ban (usually with "''arbitration violation''" or similar after it), and if subsequent warnings are given for other (non arbies) stuff, the lower warnings are filled in before moving on to the 48hr ban. I'm not sure of what to do if another arbies violation happens? I guess you move on to 48hr ban? <small>-- [[User:Boxy|<span style="color: Red">boxy</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Boxy|<span style="color: Red">talk</span>]] • [[The Rules|teh rulz]]</sup> 14:00 10 July 2009 (BST)</small>
::::::::::Makes sense to me.--{{User:Darth Sensitive/Sig}} 17:37, 10 July 2009 (BST)


==Arbitration Revamp==
==Editing during a case is frankly bad form==
As any blind who follow Recent Changes can see, i have made some changes in the Arbitration system, filing each arbitration case on a page for itself. Not only i edited our current arbitration cases to this new system, but i also changed some of the recent cases found in the 4th archive. I did that in a free time i managed to enjoy here in my work, but now i need to do some stuff and attend a meeting, and that will keep me really busy for the rest of the day, therefore unable to carry on with the revamp. If anyone with some free time could finish this, it's a really easy task... and if anyone has A LOT OF free time, it would be great if anyone could read the cases archived and write a summary about them. Not only this will help us easily understand what the case was about, but allow us to gather precedent in the future. And if anyone has any suggestions for this new system, [[UDWiki:Be Bold|Be Bold!]] and work on it. Cheers. --{{User:Hagnat/sig}} 17:12, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
:ok, so i managed to get more free time and completed the 4th archive. --{{User:Hagnat/sig}} 18:39, 28 January 2008 (UTC)


==The Archive, Again==
Frankly, editing the guidelines for arbitration whilst involved in an arbitration is a little iffy. But since the edits in question, notably hagnats are being questioned, can we have a proper look at the system? SA has already highlighted a number on inconsistencies in the system. Can we get some further discussion in order to get an agreement between all wording? --{{User:Rosslessness/Sig}} 09:36, 9 June 2009 (BST)
The old Archive links now all redirect to [[:Category:Arbitration Cases]] so as to preserve all links through them in the most practical way. Some links may not work due to small arbitrary changes done while the system was crossed over, such as [[UDWiki:Administration/Arbitration/Archive#Sonny_Corleone_vs._Rosicrux]], which no longer works<sub>(at the time of this comment, It'll be fixed probably before anyone reads this)</sub> due to a period not included in the new archive. Whenever any such errors are found please, feel free to fix them.--<small>[[User:Karek|Karek]]<sup><font face="Monotype Corsiva">[[User:Karek/ProjDev/OmegaMap|maps?!]]</font></sup></small> 20:26, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
:For one thing, people should not be able to refuse arbitration. I'm really glad that particular tidbit remained out of the public eye until now (thanks for that you tool, and Hagnat too) because it renders Arbitration 100% useless. Literally nobody would accept cases brought against them. I annoy the shit out of someone (staying within the bounds of vandalism) and they would have no way of making me stop outside of having to repeatedly delete my posts to their talk pages. BUT OMIGOD WE HAVE TO COME TO AN AGREEMANT EEEEEEEEEEEE<br />Fuck that noise. Users need to be able to easily and painlessly ban people from their talk pages and be able to have A/VB backing them up. --[[User:Cyberbob240|Cyberbob]] 10:07, 9 June 2009 (BST)
:Oh, forgot to mention, you can find a link using the old style system for every arbitration case [[User:Karek/ProjDev/PD10PT01ARBBARBR|here]], please do not edit that page though.--<small>[[User:Karek|Karek]]<sup><font face="Monotype Corsiva">[[User:Karek/ProjDev/OmegaMap|maps?!]]</font></sup></small> 20:28, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
::So junk all edits since last discussion. Anything else you feel need to be added, clarified? --{{User:Rosslessness/Sig}} 10:14, 9 June 2009 (BST)
:::I think that to reinforce the inability to refuse arbitration a clause should be added somewhere stating that if you try to refuse to participate, or refuse all arbitrators, then the person bringing the case will be able to pick whoever they like. --[[User:Cyberbob240|Cyberbob]] 10:23, 9 June 2009 (BST)
::::Anyone he likes? So say I had a case against NEWB x and I picked iscariot that would be fine? If this is the case, can we make it part of the process that you '''must''' inform the target of arbitration that you're bringing the case and that non attendance will result in it proceeding anyway, perhaps by means of a standardized template? --{{User:Rosslessness/Sig}} 10:28, 9 June 2009 (BST)
:::::A notification like that is something we should have had for ages. As for the other, yes; though I suspect that Iscariot will be more likely to come down on the side of the newbie. If people start abusing the system to pick on newbies I would think that they would be open to A/VB cases, as they would for abusing any other admin page. --[[User:Cyberbob240|Cyberbob]] 10:36, 9 June 2009 (BST)
::::::I'll throw up a horribly ugly template later on today for people to look at. --{{User:Rosslessness/Sig}} 11:16, 9 June 2009 (BST)


==sound of silence==
::Another option is to have some sort of clause that refusal to participate in arbitration (including the old "refusing all impartial arbitrators" trick), and a continuation of the edit war or behaviour stated in the case, would be a clear indication of bad faith, and hence a greater likelyhood of a warning? It gives them the option to just walk away from a dispute without having to say that they give up, which is fair enough as long as that is the end of it <small>-- [[User:Boxy|<span style="color: Red">boxy</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Boxy|<span style="color: Red">talk</span>]] • [[The Rules|teh rulz]]</sup> 11:10 9 June 2009 (BST)</small>
anyone else notice how much quieter it got around here since the change in formats? we went from one case everyother week to 4 cases that havent been updated since early february. wow. good job guys!--{{User:Blood Panther/Sig}} 07:31, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
:To be fair 3 of those cases are closed.--<small>[[User:Karek|Karek]]<sup><font face="Monotype Corsiva">[[User:Karek/ProjDev/OmegaMap|maps?!]]</font></sup></small> 10:26, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
:It's the silence before the storm... --{{User:Hagnat/sig}} 14:44, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
::Nah. I reckon people are actualy getting on for once. The wiki is a lot more peaceful than its been in a while!--{{User:Seventythree/Sig}} 15:41, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
:::3 of them are closed? even better!--{{User:Blood Panther/Sig}} 18:57, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
::::Although it messes up us people wanting the experience of running a case. still, cant complain. --{{User:Rosslessness/Sig}} 18:58, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
:::Don't expect that to last for long, Funt's already stirring up shit.--<small>[[User:Karek|Karek]]<sup><font face="Monotype Corsiva">[[User:Karek/ProjDev/OmegaMap|maps?!]]</font></sup></small> 02:19, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
ARRGGH! Stop bringing up Simon and Garfunkel. I just got "Cecilia" out of my head. --[[User:Saromu|Sonny Corleone]] <sup>[[ The Ridleybank Resistance Front|RRF]] [[DORIS]] [[Caiger Resistance Front|CRF]] [[Militant Order of Barhah|MOB]] [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=91a8pHj7V9k pr0n]</sup> 02:20, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
:Simon and Garfunkel are better than Outta love... --{{User:Hagnat/sig}} 02:26, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
::those cases are both done, haggy, wanna archive?--{{User:J3D/ciggy}} 07:32, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
He... if people though we were having too many arbitration cases, look at [[:Category:Arbitration_Cases#Jul-Sep_2|jul-sept 2006]] period... --{{User:Hagnat/sig}} 13:58, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
:lol Yea,,,but how many would have been left if jjames had left the wiki after the first one? Sheesh. [[User:Conndraka|Conndraka]]<sup>[[Moderation|mod]] [[User_talk:Conndraka|T]][[DHPD]] [[Coalition for Fair Tactics|''CFT'']]</sup> 13:57, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
::And its all kicked off again. Wonderful.--{{User:Seventythree/Sig}} 13:58, 24 March 2008 (UTC)


{{quote|hagnat|It's the silence before the storm...}}
lol i told you sa. arbies wasn't set up for what you wanted it to do. i guess changing it is as good a way to get something done as any...--{{User:J3D/ciggy}} 09:56, 10 June 2009 (BST)
I hate being right sometimes... --{{User:Hagnat/sig}} 14:59, 31 March 2008 (BST)
:pfft you love it, but still, very impressive hagz.--{{User:J3D/ciggy}} 08:02, 1 April 2008 (BST)


==General Manners and Whatnot==
==Do you like prunes?==
Guys, please stop spamming cases with your arguments with the people who want arbitration before an arbiter is accepted, it's rude and unneeded. Stop trying to pressure people into choosing an arbiter unless you are an interested party in the case, it's, frankly, none of your business and you should stay out of it. If you're volunteering to arbitrate just say ''once'' that you volunteer and leave the page alone until they decide ''unless'' one of the invested parties in the case specifically ask you a question. It's spam, it makes matters worse, and it makes it harder to tell who has and hasn't volunteered and been declined/accepted.--<small>[[User:Karek#K|Karek]]<sup><font face="Monotype Corsiva">[[User:Karek/ProjDev/OmegaMap|maps?!]]</font></sup></small> 05:47, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
I don't. But I do like to prune things occasionally. So, I'm wondering if anyone will mind if I remove a few names off the arbitrator list. Not like some mass raepage, just people who haven't made more than an edit or two in the past month or so, and leaving a snippet about it on their talk. Then I'll maintain the list and go about this the same as described. Sound good? Questions, comments, concerns, screams for me not to do it?--[[User_talk:Suicidalangel|<span style="color: DarkMagenta"> dǝǝɥs </span>]] <small><span style="color: Crimson">oʇ </span> [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0k-QHA-QAMY <span style="color: DarkGreen">ɯɐds:</span>] [http://partyvan.info/index.php/Project_Chanology/Joining <span style="color: MidnightBlue">sʎɐʍ1ɐ!</span>]</small> 21:50, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
:Why don't you just ship their comments off to the talk page and make a quick table to list the arbitrators that have voluntered (as well as who has been accepted/declined)? Sure it's more work but at least it stays semi-readable. But you are right that people should pull their heads in. - [[User:Jedaz|Jedaz]] '''- <span style="font-size:85%; color: #639">23:17/24/03/2008</span>'''
:One edit in the past two months should be enough for a user to mantain its name in the list. --[[User:Hagnat|People's Commissar Hagnat]] <sup>[[User talk:Hagnat|talk]] [[Special:Listusers/sysop|mod]]</sup> 21:54, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
::I plan to, but it's simply easier if they understand why they shouldn't be butting in in the first place.--<small>[[User:Karek#K|Karek]]<sup><font face="Monotype Corsiva">[[User:Karek/ProjDev/OmegaMap|maps?!]]</font></sup></small> 01:21, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
:Yeah, that's fine. Other people have used similar edits previously. {{User:Linkthewindow/Sig}} 21:57, 9 January 2009 (UTC)


==Removal of arbitrator list==
And done. I'll be checking back every month to maintain the list.--[[User_talk:Suicidalangel|<span style="color: DarkMagenta"> dǝǝɥs </span>]] <small><span style="color: Crimson">oʇ </span> [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0k-QHA-QAMY <span style="color: DarkGreen">ɯɐds:</span>] [http://partyvan.info/index.php/Project_Chanology/Joining <span style="color: MidnightBlue">sʎɐʍ1ɐ!</span>]</small> 20:07, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
:Thanks SA. Someone had to do this :/. {{User:Linkthewindow/Sig}} 06:41, 11 January 2009 (UTC)


This is an idea i had a long time ago, and every time i drop in this page it pops in my head. Why not remove the list of users offering to arbitrate ? It's usually outdated, with inactive users being listed there for aeons before they get removed. Since we have moved to a system where it's stated that ANYONE can offer to arbitrate, it really serves no purpose. --{{User:Hagnat/sig}} 15:16, 23 May 2008 (BST)
==Time limit on cases==
:I second that... --[[User:Honestmistake|Honestmistake]] 19:28, 23 May 2008 (BST)
:We should vote in people... otherwise the list should be removed. --{{User:A Helpful Little Gnome/Sig}} 19:34, 23 May 2008 (BST)
::No. I would not want to only pick from people that the majority of people support. I agree in getting rid of the list and let anyone volunteer. This affect me mroe than anyone since I go to Arby's more than anyone else. --[[User:Saromu|Sonny Corleone]] <sup>[[ The Ridleybank Resistance Front|RRF]] [[DORIS]] [[MSD]] [[Militant Order of Barhah|MOB]] [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=91a8pHj7V9k pr0n]</sup> 19:37, 23 May 2008 (BST)
:::Lose it, or per recruitment, timestamp it. Not reviewed after a month, then deleted. --{{User:Rosslessness/Sig}} 19:39, 23 May 2008 (BST)
:::Alright, makes sense. People ignore the list anyways. --{{User:A Helpful Little Gnome/Sig}} 19:41, 23 May 2008 (BST)
It's done. --{{User:Hagnat/sig}} 20:42, 23 May 2008 (BST)
:It's undone. I don't think it should be removed, just maintained to some degree, remove people who are inactive. And 5 hours is hardly time for something like this, especially considering I wasn't on in those 5 hours and I'm sure numerous other people who might have an opinion weren't either.--<small>[[User:Karek#K|Karek]]<sup><font face="Monotype Corsiva">[[User:Karek/ProjDev/OmegaMap|maps?!]]</font></sup></small> 21:54, 23 May 2008 (BST)
::You do not need to be on the list to be an arbitrator so why have the list? The de-facto system is that someone posts a reason for their desire to enter arbies and interested/neutral parties who feel they have time volunteer to fill the role. The list does nothing useful at all!--[[User:Honestmistake|Honestmistake]] 01:41, 24 May 2008 (BST)
:::To give people options that are prevolunteered so they have a pool bigger than the three to ten people that have been following their dispute and stick their hand up. Having my name on that lists means that if someone wants me as an arbitrator all they have to do is ask and I will do it, unless I say otherwise, I'd expect the same of anyone else who adds themselves to that list, as that is it's purpose.--<small>[[User:Karek#K|Karek]]<sup><font face="Monotype Corsiva">[[User:Karek/ProjDev/OmegaMap|maps?!]]</font></sup></small> 01:44, 24 May 2008 (BST)
Personally I think that the list should stay and addendum added to the top that says '''''Anyone can actually be an arbiter in a dispute, however the following individuals have volunteered to give of their time to be a listed arbiter. Note: not all of the individuals listed here may be currently active on the wiki.'''''[[User:Conndraka|Conndraka]]<sup>[[Moderation|mod]] [[User_talk:Conndraka|T]][[TBA]] [[Coalition for Fair Tactics|''CFT'']]</sup> 01:52, 24 May 2008 (BST) Oh Wait... It already says that. Hmmmm [[User:Conndraka|Conndraka]]<sup>[[Moderation|mod]] [[User_talk:Conndraka|T]][[TBA]] [[Coalition for Fair Tactics|''CFT'']]</sup> 01:54, 24 May 2008 (BST)


It should be there, people need a vague idea of who is potentially interested and if its gone theres gonna be a lot more offering to arby going on. I agree with whoever suggested the timestamp idea, and any user who wants to remain on the list has to come back at least once a month and update their timestamp.--{{User:J3D/ciggy}} 04:01, 24 May 2008 (BST)
{{Quote|Krazy Monkey|Cases that have not been edited by either involved party for longer than 7 days or cases in which no arbitrator has yet been agreed upon after 7 days shall be archived.}}
:Or we could simply use such timestamp to warn people of when the table was updated. Check every user in the table, if he hasn't made an edit in a month, his name gets removed from it, and the timestamp is updated for the day this check was made. --{{User:Hagnat/sig}} 15:47, 24 May 2008 (BST)
::OK I finally got round to adding my name, thing is though... if I feel that its a case I could be fair on and have a good enough understanding of and have the time to give it the due attention I just throw my name into the hat. The table just seems kind of redundant to me!--[[User:Honestmistake|Honestmistake]] 15:56, 24 May 2008 (BST)
Tried [http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php?title=UDWiki:Administration/Arbitration&oldid=1156516 something] to help check the contributions of the users listed there... fucking ugly, reverted it. --{{User:Hagnat/sig}} 16:14, 24 May 2008 (BST)
:Not that bad, except for the superscript. --{{User:A Helpful Little Gnome/Sig}} 16:30, 24 May 2008 (BST)
::Hm, ok i guess, still its a step, do people think that no contributions in a month warrents removal  from the list? --{{User:Rosslessness/Sig}} 17:27, 24 May 2008 (BST)
:::I think two months is more realistic. I'm sure that many people on the list are lurking and make edits occasionally. 2 months in my opinoin is probably the best range. Has anyone actually checked the recent contributions of the users on this list? Are we sure that this is needed at all? I had a quick look at a few of the lesser known users and they seem to be fairly active. - [[User:Jedaz|Jedaz]] '''- <span style="font-size:85%; color: #639">00:31/30/05/2008</span>'''
::::It's always the ones you least suspect.--{{User:J3D/ciggy}} 01:06, 30 May 2008 (BST)
:::Hmm... well I went and done the list, only 6 out of 46 are inactive using my 2 month rule. I don't think thats too bad. Heres the list. I might as well remove those who haven't been around for a long while. - [[User:Jedaz|Jedaz]] '''- <span style="font-size:85%; color: #639">01:37/30/05/2008</span>'''
*Acoustic Pie - 29 May 2008
*Airborne88 - 22 May 2008
*Akule - 29 May 2008
*AnimeSucks - 29 May 2008
*Atticus Rex - 17 December 2007
*Axe Hack - 29 May 2008
*Blood Panther - 29 May 2008
*boxy - 29 May 2008
*Cheeseman - 29 May 2008
*Conndraka - 29 May 2008
*Cyberbob240 - 29 May 2008
*Darth Sensitive - 1 May 2008
*DevilAsh - 29 May 2008
*Dragon fang - 29 May 2008
*Dux Ducis - 29 May 2008
*Finis Valorum - 28 May 2008
*Funt Solo - 29 May 2008
*hagnat - 30 May 2008
*Headless Gunner - 27 July 2006
*Iscariot - 28 May 2008
*Jed - 30 May 2008
*Jedaz - 30 May 2008
*Jordan Salafack - 3 April 2008
*Karek - 29 May 2008
*Labine50  - 28 May 2008
*Matthewfarenheit - 11 May 2008
*Max Grivas - 18 February 2008
*Midianian - 30 May 2008
*MikhailA - 19 May 2008
*Novascotia - 29 March 2008
*Nubis - 29 May 2008
*Ornithopter - 17 May 2008
*Rosslessness - 29 May 2008
*Ryiis - 25 January 2008
*Sonny Corleone - 29 May 2008
*Scotw - 29 May 2008
*Seventythree - 30 May 2008
*Studoku - 8 May 2008
*Suicidal Angel - 19 May 2008
*The General - 27 March 2008
*The Grimch - 29 May 2008
*The Quiz Master - 29 May 2008
*Toejam - 29 May 2008
*V2Blast - 24 March 2008
*Z. slay3r - 28 May 2008
*Honestmistake - 29 May 2008


==The Grimch versus Conndraka==
Yeah, we need something like that, but isn't setting a limit on how long you have to choose an arbitrator a bit pedantic? On many cases it does take longer then that. What about after a week, something along the lines of "Choose an arbitrator now!" is said, and if no arbitrator is chosen within another week then, archived.
Or, better know as: Grim just can't let shit go. 2.0.--{{User:Axe27/Sig}} 05:27, 29 May 2008 (BST)
:How about it be called "I dont want to be bound by a perpetual absurd ruling that could get my arse banned for a day years after i have forgotten it". I damn near violated it today before i remembered, which is why i brought the case. Adding this on top of the shit Conn hass been doing lately and theres the case. A little advice: Events make more sense when you use your brain to process them. This is something you should have learned long ago, but apparently the education system isnt what it once was. --[[User:Grim_s|The Grimch]] <sup>[[Project UnWelcome|U!]] [[Project Evil|E!]] [[We are Trolls!|WAT!]]</sup> 06:12, 29 May 2008 (BST)
::I assume the page in question is my user page. That's why I have the little warning at the top. The thing is, the ruling basically prevents you from posting on my pages or articles I create in an unofficial manner. Why does that really need to be reversed? Is there that big of a need for you to post on my user page, my group, or my journal? --{{User:Akule/sig}} 20:55, 29 May 2008 (BST)
:::If he's an involved topic why shouldn't he be allowed to comment. You said something very ''very'' similar to that on your own talk page recently, the thing about restraining orders going two ways.--<small>[[User:Karek#K|Karek]]<sup><font face="Monotype Corsiva">[[User:Karek/ProjDev/OmegaMap|maps?!]]</font></sup></small> 22:07, 29 May 2008 (BST)
:::Akule, i was banned for a day for posting on a policy discussion you posted. Thats pretty official. --[[User:Grim_s|The Grimch]] <sup>[[Project UnWelcome|U!]] [[Project Evil|E!]] [[We are Trolls!|WAT!]]</sup> 03:21, 31 May 2008 (BST)
:How do you let go a case that has no effective end to it's ruling?--<small>[[User:Karek#K|Karek]]<sup><font face="Monotype Corsiva">[[User:Karek/ProjDev/OmegaMap|maps?!]]</font></sup></small> 06:19, 29 May 2008 (BST)


=Discussion of Arbitration Cases=
Secondly, I would rather there be fourteen days before any cases get archived (no edits,) but, meh. {{User:Linkthewindow/Sig}} 13:54, 17 January 2009 (UTC)


= Discussion of Arbitration Cases =
===Oberst vs Cheese===
Isn't the page supposed to remain unedited through the course of Arbitration? I see lots of editing still taking place. ~[[Image:Vsig.png|link=User:Vapor]] <sub>00:43, 10 April 2012 (UTC)</sub>
::Move it to the talk page if you feel strongly about it fucktard. [[User:Generaloberst|Generaloberst]] 0:44, 10 April 2012 (BST)
:::Move what to which talk page? I'm talking about the edits to [[Blitz]] after the arbies already started. ~[[Image:Vsig.png|link=User:Vapor]] <sub>01:00, 10 April 2012 (UTC)</sub>
::::Feel free to go to [[A/PT]] if you feel an edit conflict is going on. --'''<span style="font-family:monospace; background-color:#222222">[[User:Spiderzed|<span style="color:Lime"> Spiderzed</span>]][[User talk:Spiderzed|<span style="color:Lime">█ </span>]]</span>''' 01:12, 10 April 2012 (BST)
:::::Why? It would just get protected in whichever state it is in now. All editing the page is doing now is making it harder for an arbitrator to make a clear decision. You'd think both parties would want to avoid that. That's why its pretty standard practice for a page to go hands off once it goes to Arbies for edit conflict. Although it would appear Obesrt has taken some amount of license whilst "adding back in" Cheese's edits. And that's recisely why the rule exists.  ~[[Image:Vsig.png|link=User:Vapor]] <sub>01:27, 10 April 2012 (UTC)</sub>
::::::standard practice? It's the rules. Revert and protect {{User:DanceDanceRevolution/sig}} 01:43, 10 April 2012 (BST)


===[[User:Spiderzed]] and [[Big Coffin Hunters]] vs [[User:tyx94]] and [[User:Yonnua Koponen]]===
Hmmm... nothing for over a week. Withdraw? --{{:User:Thanatologist/Sig}} 14:35, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
:The policy discussion has still two days left before being cycled, while the template talk page has no closing date. Still, this looks like one of the many arbies that fade away with a whimper. --{{User:Spiderzed/Sandbox/Sig}} 15:52, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
::The template talk has two closing dates: Feb. 28th for nominations, and March 15 for voting. -[[MHS|<span style="color: Black">'''MHS'''</span>]][[User_Talk:MHSstaff|<span style="color: DarkBlue">'''staff'''</span>]] 17:43, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
::I refuse to rescind this claim. Either it's solved through PD or the template talk, or I'm having your group forcibly moved to the correct section through arbies.--{{User:Yonnua Koponen/signature‎}} 16:07, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
:::Forcibly moved? --{{User:Rosslessness/Sig}} 16:47, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
::::I'm assuming an impartial arbitrator will force them to move it to the correct section.--{{User:Yonnua Koponen/signature‎}} 18:13, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
:::::Yeah, we don't force, we rule. Failure to follow the ruling results in a double escalation. --{{User:Rosslessness/Sig}} 18:16, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
::::::Ergh, it's effective forcing. And since it's a community page, an arbitrator can put it in a specific way and tell involved parties not to change it, so technically they can't be forced to do it, but it can be forced to happen by an arbitrator.--{{User:Yonnua Koponen/signature‎}} 18:44, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
:::::::But surely you'd want a precedent, so future issues of editing the page could be handled quickly? You want something that allows you to modify the page regardless of who changes it? --{{User:Rosslessness/Sig}} 18:46, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
::::::::Actually, I think he's most interested in waving his E-penis around. Forcibly.-{{User:Zombie Lord/sig2}} <tt>18:53 23 February 2011(UTC)</tt>
:::::::::You know, if this ass heap does go to arbies again, count me in on BCH's side. This would likely affect the Knights in an adverse manner. {{User:Misanthropy/Sig}} 20:33, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
::::::::::Shit, count me in too. Let's ''all'' jump in! -- {{User:DanceDanceRevolution/sig4}} 23:09, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
:::::::::::Thanks kids. --{{User:Rosslessness/Sig}} 23:11, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
{{arbiesfight}}{{User:Zombie Lord/sig2}} <tt>00:13 24 February 2011(UTC)</tt>
::::::::::::''"Tyx and I should both accept, and I'm not representing the DA, '''I'm representing the wiki as a game resource'''.--Yonnua Koponen T G P ^^^ 19:36, 10 February 2011 (UTC) "'' As a User of the Wiki with a very strong interest in keeping the Wiki as an ''accurate'' and ''practical-to-use'' Game Resource, I found this statement highly amusing. --{{User:DT/Signature}} 01:11, 24 Feabruary 2011 (UTC)
:::::::::::::This should be the best spot for this, I think. Just for everyone to know, I'm not going to participate if this goes to arbitration. I don't have the time for it, and honestly, I really doubt I'm going to get a fair ruling. Spiderzed has too many friends here, and I can see that apart from Yonnua, I have no support. As a newcomer here, I've got no chance at all. Frankly, it's not my problem if the wiki is full of inaccurate information, so I don't care too much, to be honest. This isn't intended as a shot at anyone, I'm just letting everyone know i have no interest in pursuing this. If Yonnua wants to, that's fine.--[[User:Tyx94|tyx94]] 19:45, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
::::::::::::aww i just made popcorn--<small><div style="display: inline-block; height: 14px; width: 18px; overflow: hidden; vertical-align: text-bottom;">[[User:Sexualharrison|<span style="position: absolute; display: block; font-size: 0px; height: 14px; width: 18px;"> </span>]][[Image:Boobs.sh.siggie.gif|18px]]</div> [[User talk:Sexualharrison|<span style="color:Red">bitch</span>]] 20:53 11 March 2011 (UTC)</small>


===Izzy vs Bunghole===
I'm not sure if I'm allowed to comment here, so please forgive me if I do it wrong. My question is, why is this case still here? It's completed already. --[[User:Cornholioo|Cornholioo]] 23:47, 2 May 2010 (BST)
:It was still there because no one had gotten around to moving it yet. Unless someone specifically cleans those things up, we'll generally just deal with them whenever the next case comes around. {{User:Aichon/Signature}} 00:30, 3 May 2010 (BST)


===Zombie Lord vs [[User:Lelouch|Lelouch]]===
Clearly has no interest in editing my suggestions other than trolling them. I seek to have him banned from editing any of my suggestions in any way in the future. I will accept Boxy, Honestmistake, SA, Linkthewindow, The Rooster or AHLG as arbitrator.{{User:Zombie Lord/sig2}} <tt>19:43 1 January 2010(UTC)</tt>
:hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha<br />hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahah
ahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha<br />hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha<br />hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahah
ahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha<br />hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahah
ahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha--{{User:OrangeGaf/Sig}} 19:59, 1 January 2010 (UTC)<br />
::Gaf, Lulz. Also Zombie Lord, why did you separate the cases again. Merge them with the 2 below, they are the same. You aren't going to get 3 separate cases, only more drama. If you continue to try to stir up a mess on purpose the only thing you'll get is a ban. --[[Image:Umbrella-White.png|14px]][[User:MisterGame|<span style= "color: maroon; background-color: white">'''''Thadeous Oakley''''']][[Image:Umbrella-White.png|14px]]</span> 20:03, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
{{arbiesfight}}-- {{User:DanceDanceRevolution/sig4}} 01:10, 24 February 2011 (UTC)


==[[User:Cyberbob240|Cyberbob240]] vs. [[2 Cool]]==
===Zombie Lord vs Verance===
This <s>circlejerk association</s> group have plastered their template on a number of pages which, although they have been created or worked on by 2 Cool members, are in the public namespace and/or cover topics which are group-neutral. For them to leave their (completely ugly no less) template on these pages is borderline spam, and completely inappropriate.
Clearly has no interest in editing my suggestions other than vandalizing them. I seek to have him banned from editing any of my suggestions in any way in the future. I will accept Boxy, Honestmistake, SA, Linkthewindow, The Rooster or AHLG as arbitrator.{{User:Zombie Lord/sig2}} <tt>07:42 1 January 2010(UTC)</tt>


The page list:
*[[Guide:Colloquialisms]]
*[[Guide:Colloquialisms/Suburb_Nicknames]]
*[[Great_Fire_of_1912]]
*[[The_Arkham_Sisters]]
*[[Sir_Dick_Longman]]
*[[Beer_Schools_Alliance]]
*[[Malton_Electric]]


The goal of this case? To have the template removed from the above pages and to have the group barred from placing it in inappropriate places in future. --[[User:Cyberbob240|HAHAHA DISREGARD THAT, I SUCK COCKS]] 06:29, 11 October 2008 (BST)
<big> <center>'''Please Don't feed the Troll'''!!!<br>
:How can you circlejerk with only two people?--{{User:J3D/ciggy}} 06:30, 11 October 2008 (BST)
It will only encourage it, and then you'll be sorry!<br>
::By being very, very good at it. --[[User:Cyberbob240|HAHAHA DISREGARD THAT, I SUCK COCKS]] 06:32, 11 October 2008 (BST)
Just ignore them, and it. ''will'' go away. Eventually.</center></big>
:::Oh I think he's including our fanclub.--{{User:Nallan/sig}} 06:35, 11 October 2008 (BST)


I just hit save page on [http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php/Talk:Amusing_Locations_in_Malton#General_Discussion  my post] about this. Damn, you guys are quick.--{{User:Nubis/sig}} 06:32, 11 October 2008 (BST)
:FYI - this is '''very''' close to the DMZ case and they lost. Just something to think about.--{{User:Nubis/sig}} 06:32, 11 October 2008 (BST)
::Can you link to that case? --[[User:Cyberbob240|HAHAHA DISREGARD THAT, I SUCK COCKS]] 06:37, 11 October 2008 (BST)
:::It wasn't so much an arbies case but an [[http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php/Talk:Dunell_Hills#Settling_the_.22DMZ.22_issue SA vs DHPD flame war]] on the DH talk page. A few sysops stepped in and did agree that the DMZ category on every thing was excessive.* It's hard (but amusing) to get to the meat of the issue through the bitching, but TL;DR version is that DHPD had the DMZ tag on things not in DH, the sysops said that wasn't "fair" and that no other group was allowed to do that (the Dead had members banned when they made the City of the Dead category), the tags were removed and I think a page about the DMZ was added under DH space and brief mentions of it were allowed on certain pages. I really do try to "move on" from SA vs DH drama. --{{User:Nubis/sig}} 06:50, 11 October 2008 (BST)
:::[http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php/DHPD/Archive/Talk#Category This is the original DMZ concern]] brought up by AHLG.--{{User:Nubis/sig}} 06:56, 11 October 2008 (BST)


''Despite'' the recent attack of the oh-so-clevers by 2 Cool this case is pressing ahead regardless. --[[User:Cyberbob240|HAHAHA DISREGARD THAT, I SUCK COCKS]] 06:50, 11 October 2008 (BST)
Anywho, as should be obvious to anyone, one of ZL's "suggestions" was put on line to be placed in the no-discussion bin, and he apparently deemed it necessary to copy it and place it back at the top, commonly known as "attention whoring". No arbitration needed, just don't feed the troll. That is all that needs to be said. [[User:Verance|Verance]] 14:56, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
:I'm sorry but i don't understand what you want. Not only do those pages directly relate to alim (they were created as offshoots of it) but they are now housed as subpages. What is your concern? --{{User:J3D/ciggy}} 06:55, 11 October 2008 (BST)
::The fact that I'm almost certain that you're lying about more than one of those pages having been created as part of ALiM. --[[User:Cyberbob240|HAHAHA DISREGARD THAT, I SUCK COCKS]] 06:58, 11 October 2008 (BST)
:::You started an arbies case because your "almost certain" about something? Wow. No all of these were created by Jed and nick to enhance ALiM, I'm ACTUALLY certain about that.--{{User:Sexylegsread/sig}} 07:00, 11 October 2008 (BST)
::::No, my being "almost certain" was irrelevant until the pages were moved to the ALiM namespace. --[[User:Cyberbob240|HAHAHA DISREGARD THAT, I SUCK COCKS]] 07:01, 11 October 2008 (BST)
:::::Well that's fucking A bob, but they were all created by Nick and I. I'll do a timeline for you. August 07 - 2 Cool created, October 07 - ALiM created, the months between then and now - all those small side projects created. Comprendé? Some of them have been edited by mulitple people, some by just Nick and/or I. The point is all the basic ideas for the pages come from 2 Cool and the team over at ALiM, and further almost all those pages are integrally related to ALiM and a number of it's locations. Hence the navbar and hence they are now subpages there. Stop saying random shit you are almost certain of (and entirely wrong about) and tell me what the fuck you want from this arby case now the situation has changed.--{{User:J3D/ciggy}} 07:07, 11 October 2008 (BST)
::::::There is ''no fucking way'' the Great Fire page (at ''least'') has been around for such a short period of time. GTFO. --[[User:Cyberbob240|HAHAHA DISREGARD THAT, I SUCK COCKS]] 07:08, 11 October 2008 (BST)


I have no clue where to respond to any of this, but since my concern is trying to head off arbies (until we can get it fixed) then I will reply here. When I suggested moving the pages to subpages I meant future ones. The problem now is that ALiM effectively "owns" these "historical " pages. I swear the Great Fire one has been around for a while... Bob, what do you want as an outcome for this?  I don't quite see where you are going with this. Help me out.--{{User:Nubis/sig}} 07:04, 11 October 2008 (BST)
Merge with the one case above please as it basically resolves around the same.--[[Image:Umbrella-White.png|14px]][[User:MisterGame|<span style= "color: maroon; background-color: white">'''''Thadeous Oakley''''']][[Image:Umbrella-White.png|14px]]</span> 15:23, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
:The ones they actually created can stay where they are. The ones they didn't (Great Fire probably being the only one in this category actually) need to be moved back where they belong. --[[User:Cyberbob240|HAHAHA DISREGARD THAT, I SUCK COCKS]] 07:07, 11 October 2008 (BST)
{{arbiesfight}}-- {{User:DanceDanceRevolution/sig4}} 01:10, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
:Nubis, I can assure you, these were all created by Nick and Jed. I don't know if they were intended to tie them in with ALiM at the time of their creation, but eventually they all did, and they all flourished from there.--{{User:Sexylegsread/sig}} 07:05, 11 October 2008 (BST)
::Great Fire has been around for awhile, my guess would be janurary or so. But it is certified 2 Cool created, i guarantee it.--{{User:J3D/ciggy}} 07:08, 11 October 2008 (BST)
:::I made the Great Fire pages. There was a deletions case over it.--{{User:Nallan/sig}} 07:09, 11 October 2008 (BST)
::::I'm looking through the Deletions archive and I'm not seeing it. Mind pointing me in the right direction? --[[User:Cyberbob240|HAHAHA DISREGARD THAT, I SUCK COCKS]] 07:16, 11 October 2008 (BST)
:::::[http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php/UDWiki:Administration/Deletions/Archive/Apr_2008 here] It was about the category, doesn't prove anything, but it shows the whole "wiki vs 2cool" thing.--{{User:Sexylegsread/sig}} 07:17, 11 October 2008 (BST)
::::::That has absolutely nothing to do with anything we're talking about whatsoever. I'm laughing at you for thinking it does, as the words "2 Cool" are not mentioned anywhere. Not once. --[[User:Cyberbob240|HAHAHA DISREGARD THAT, I SUCK COCKS]] 07:20, 11 October 2008 (BST)
:::It's your word against that of people who have no real emotional involvement in this case (I actually don't, believe it or not; as far as my personal emotions go I couldn't care less about the outcome of this case) without any hard proof either way. If you can't produce any of said proof I suggest you cram it and nominate acceptable arbitrators. --[[User:Cyberbob240|HAHAHA DISREGARD THAT, I SUCK COCKS]] 07:12, 11 October 2008 (BST)
:::I did find the deletions case [http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php/User_talk:WanYao/Archive#Your_Great_Fire_Category_deletion_vote here]. From April at least.  Can we do this: can we move back the great fire one (since it seems to honestly be the oldest and most linked) and come up with a smaller more focused nav template for it?  Then in future you can make the other pages in your space and have whatever template you want.
:::The main reason I ask for this considerable compromise from the ALiM guys on the Great Fire is because it is a great portal into ALiM since almost any page in Malton can link to the Great Fire. If you compromise and put that one back with a more "neutral" template/links you may get more vistors to your project because of it.--{{User:Nubis/sig}} 07:19, 11 October 2008 (BST)
::::I... suppose I would be willing to compromise on that front as long as the new template was strictly neutral. --[[User:Cyberbob240|HAHAHA DISREGARD THAT, I SUCK COCKS]] 07:21, 11 October 2008 (BST)
::::We're discussing... And just for the record, I have people who can (hopefully) back me up as creator of that page, for instance [[User talk:Rosslessness|Ros]] or [[User:Saromu]]. They'd remember posting on the talk page at the time.--{{User:Nallan/sig}} 07:23, 11 October 2008 (BST)
:::::Personally, I hope that 2cool don't "compromise". They created the page for their own lulz and fostered it into its current existance. They shouldn't have to compromise with anyone.--{{User:Sexylegsread/sig}} 07:26, 11 October 2008 (BST)
::::::They've already been more or less forced to move pages into their namespace. --[[User:Cyberbob240|HAHAHA DISREGARD THAT, I SUCK COCKS]] 07:27, 11 October 2008 (BST)
:::::::It's simple - if they ''didn't move the pages'' to their name space then they ''were'' spamming the ALiM stuff (see DMZ). By moving the pages they can have whatever they want on it, however, if they start spamming links to the pages elsewhere then we will have an issue. --{{User:Nubis/sig}} 07:34, 11 October 2008 (BST)
:::::::No, they wanted to have it in the ALiM name space from day one, they regretted that they didn't. But you can feel big for just one moment bob, congrats on your win ;)--{{User:Sexylegsread/sig}} 07:29, 11 October 2008 (BST)
::::::::Uh... ''what''? They can't have regretted it all that much; it isn't like they haven't had nearly a year to fix it. --[[User:Cyberbob240|HAHAHA DISREGARD THAT, I SUCK COCKS]] 07:34, 11 October 2008 (BST)
:::::::::I wouldn't say regret, but i've always felt they would be better of as ALiM subpages, i just never cared that much and neither did anyone else - until now.--{{User:J3D/ciggy}} 07:38, 11 October 2008 (BST)
::::I'm not even sure how it go to this but it is totally irrelevant at any rate. We moved those pages to subpages of ALiM because bob was concerned that we were spamming the alim template on non alim stuff. By moving them there and then explaining the number of ways the pages were related to alim this should no longer be an issue. While no one can definatively prove who created the great fire page (sigh, thanks kev) i suggest you ask wan, boxy, karek etc who have all been involved with 2 Cool stuff and might remember it. I'm not sure who you think i would lie about this...--{{User:J3D/ciggy}} 07:24, 11 October 2008 (BST)
:::::Great, before you were willing to compromise but now you magically aren't? Yippee. Nubis' suggestion has nothing to do with who made the page, you'll note. --[[User:Cyberbob240|HAHAHA DISREGARD THAT, I SUCK COCKS]] 07:26, 11 October 2008 (BST)
::::::[[Talk:Amusing Locations in Malton/Great Fire of 1912]] - that is direct copy pasted from the old talk, check the histories there if you don't beleive it. It clear shows Nallan as the first editor of that page and also other users referring to us when editing the page. While i can't prove we created the page i can show you that we were seen even back in Feb and Apr as the operators of the page. My compromise extends as far as making the template substantially less intrusive and moving the pages to be alim subpages, i'm halfway through achieving these goals.--{{User:J3D/ciggy}} 07:28, 11 October 2008 (BST)
::::::::We aren't arguing ownership, we are asking for compromise on the template and asking that the most known page be put back (which would be in your best interest anyway like I said above) --{{User:Nubis/sig}} 07:30, 11 October 2008 (BST)
::::::They've already been more or less forced to move pages into their namespace. --[[User:Cyberbob240|HAHAHA DISREGARD THAT, I SUCK COCKS]] 07:27, 11 October 2008 (BST)
Sorry, "we"? Thats wonderful that you have outlined what you want, but they created the page, if they want to do it, they can, if they don't, case closed and move on.--{{User:Sexylegsread/sig}} 07:32, 11 October 2008 (BST)
:Yes, "we", Nubis and I are arguing more or less the same thing. --[[User:Cyberbob240|HAHAHA DISREGARD THAT, I SUCK COCKS]] 07:34, 11 October 2008 (BST)


:::::::::Actually bob is arguing that that page has been around for longer, which is offensive and undermines our argument that these pages are largely run by us and associated with ALiM, hence determining that is important. The old pages are now redirects which should have no influence on through traffic.--{{User:J3D/ciggy}} 07:34, 11 October 2008 (BST)
==Iscariot vs Sgt Raiden==
::::::::::The age of the page and the length of time it spent not under the auspices of ALiM have not embedded it in people's minds as something that should be group-oriented. By leaving it out of your namespace and putting a more unobtrusive and neutral template on it you will attract far less ire. --[[User:Cyberbob240|HAHAHA DISREGARD THAT, I SUCK COCKS]] 07:39, 11 October 2008 (BST)
Discussion Move to [[UDWiki talk:Administration/Arbitration/Iscariot vs Sgt Raiden|archive]]
::::::::::::Ok, try and comprehend this, extra chromosome or not, just try and comprehend this. Every page on that Navbar, was created by Nick and Jed, as part of the ALiM Wikiproject. So it has ALWAYS been part of ALiM.--{{User:Sexylegsread/sig}} 07:43, 11 October 2008 (BST)
:::::::::::::har har har aneuploidy joke har har har --[[User:Cyberbob240|HAHAHA DISREGARD THAT, I SUCK COCKS]] 07:46, 11 October 2008 (BST)
::::::::::::::so you understand then, good. I'm glad.--{{User:Sexylegsread/sig}} 07:48, 11 October 2008 (BST)
:::::::::::I don't know what ire is, and i'm not too sure i care about how much i attract. Neither am i all that concerned with whether or not people feel it is group orientated, the navbar has been there long enough and during that time the page has more of less function as an ALiM subpage. Not to mention that almost all the redirects come from ALiM locations that ALiM editors have added in. Thus traffic to the page comes mainly through ALiM stuff, and the cycle of life continues.--{{User:J3D/ciggy}} 07:41, 11 October 2008 (BST)
 
===Current Situation===
You moved a page from the main space via a redirect to your space. It wasn't a group page, but rather an article. That could be seen as vandalism. The core issue is this: if a page is in the main space but a part of the ALiM it can't be spammed with that large template. Period. Since we can't prove ''exact'' ownership of the page and the fact that it was in the main space for so long it's very questionable that you choose now to move it. This will all go away by putting the Great Fire back with a more neutral template.  Not saying you need to get rid of the template completely or move the others back, but that is the one page causing most of the problems. It's because it seems to be the oldest and most known. The main issue has only been over the size and placement of the nav template. (that's what caught my attention before all of this started, by the way)  --{{User:Nubis/sig}} 07:58, 11 October 2008 (BST)
:Thank you. That was all getting rather confusing. --[[User:Cyberbob240|HAHAHA DISREGARD THAT, I SUCK COCKS]] 07:59, 11 October 2008 (BST)
::The nav template will change, see my talk page. Also, please wait for people who were around at the early days of the Great Fire and can testify that it was 2 Cool created. We have already said we created it, and quite frankly considering we have been fully honest regarding this entire case, you should have no reason to doubt that. Putting the great fire back would be splitting up the various ALiM related fictional story pages when clearly they should all be grouped together.--{{User:J3D/ciggy}} 08:01, 11 October 2008 (BST)
:::I think if we can provide witnesses this should be open/shut. Can you wait that long?--{{User:Nallan/sig}} 08:03, 11 October 2008 (BST)
::::Have you taken him home to meet mum yet, bob?
::::Nubis, you can't prove ownership. You are right, but mostly all the signs point towards Jed and Nick creating this page. There is more evidence pointing to that than anything else. Either, you leave it alone and let Jed and Nick do whatever they want with their page, or you ask them nicely to try out your method of spicing up the page. You tell them you like their literary talents, and you find the page very convincing, you compliment them on their job well done, and you try your best to change their opinion on what they should do. It is their page, you should be asking them nicely, not telling them what to do.--{{User:Sexylegsread/sig}} 08:08, 11 October 2008 (BST)
:::::Where am I telling them what to do? I've been asking for a compromise all along. I've told them what the situation looks like from the outside. And I did tell them the page is rather well known and would be a great portal/ad for their project. But thank you for your timely advice, Mike.
:::::(edit conflicted from before) Thank you for seeing to the nav concerns. I understand your side in regards to keeping your ALiM stories together, but let's be honest. This is a wiki. It's a matter of a link on a page.
:::::About witnesses, if you can find actual links in their contribs or something that substantial that would be great, otherwise it is just one person's word against anothers, you know? I would hope that you would be flattered that this particular article would be so well known!  I hope this is worked out for both sides.--{{User:Nubis/sig}} 08:11, 11 October 2008 (BST)
::::::Its Michael, thanks, Nub.--{{User:Sexylegsread/sig}} 08:14, 11 October 2008 (BST)
::::::Oh of course, we're very flattered, but also at the same time insulted that anyone could doubt we created it. I'll get to work on those contribs.--{{User:Nallan/sig}} 08:17, 11 October 2008 (BST)
:::::::Have you not been paying attention whatsoever? Nobody is currently doubting that you created the page; all Nubis and I are doing is making a suggestion that would harmonise the Great Fire page's image and its format. --[[User:Cyberbob240|HAHAHA DISREGARD THAT, I SUCK COCKS]] 08:20, 11 October 2008 (BST)
::::::::I call Bullshit! You threatened arbies over it, unless you don't think we created the page on what grounds would you attempt to convince an impartial adjudicator that we must relocate the page?--{{User:J3D/ciggy}} 08:25, 11 October 2008 (BST)
:::::::::Hence the word ''currently'', dipshit. lrn2read --[[User:Cyberbob240|HAHAHA DISREGARD THAT, I SUCK COCKS]] 08:26, 11 October 2008 (BST)
::::::::::Well if you don't want an arbitration case please keep your pathetic begging off this page.--{{User:J3D/ciggy}} 08:27, 11 October 2008 (BST)
:::::::::::Your consistent misunderstanding of where I'm now coming from is hilariously sad. My argument is that with the image most people have in their minds of the Great Fire page it would be prudent of you to move it back to the public namespace and put a more low-key template on it. I'm not disputing who owns it - and haven't been for some time, you pathetic excuse for intelligence. --[[User:Cyberbob240|HAHAHA DISREGARD THAT, I SUCK COCKS]] 08:31, 11 October 2008 (BST)
::::::::::::wat....so this is your story until it is proved wrong, then once that happens, you will change it and litter your comments with insults? Excellent.--{{User:Sexylegsread/sig}} 08:35, 11 October 2008 (BST)
:::::::::::::Mate i can take all the insults you can hurl at me, keep em coming, but get them off this page. Because no matter what you think would be prudent of me to do, it has nothing to do with arbitration. Unless you are suggestion we get an impartial adjudicator to also make suggestions of what i might perhaps be interested in doing? To me that just seems silly. --{{User:J3D/ciggy}} 08:38, 11 October 2008 (BST)
:Okay, so would you be happy if the great fire page was moved back to Great Fire of 1912, however remained with the ALiM template in it's new slimline format (anyone with coding skills interested in helping out that'd be appreciated) and apart from the fact that the page is not in the ALiM namespace would be identical in it's format to the other ALiM subpages and would continue to largely fall under the jurisdiction of the ALiM team? And while yes, i am proud (and somewhat taken a back) that you feel the Great Fire page is as ancient as the wiki, i'm more concerned that you seem unwilling to accept that we did indeed make it and that we feel the ALiM navbar is an integral part of the page.--{{User:J3D/ciggy}} 08:17, 11 October 2008 (BST)
::I'd be cool with that. (for the record, I do believe you guys - or someone with you - made it, but I ''can't'' just go OK. I sort of should at least ask for proof, ya know?) ALso, I posted a potential idea for a nav template on your page.--{{User:Nubis/sig}} 08:25, 11 October 2008 (BST)
:::And just for the record, you are clear on what I mean about spamming pages with the nav. temp. and why I stepped in? Just make any future pages in your space and we'll probably never have this issue again. --{{User:Nubis/sig}} 08:29, 11 October 2008 (BST)
:::::Funny that you should be trying to pull ''that'' insult, Michael. You've been arguing 2 Cool's point for them everywhere the argument has even looked like it's taking place - in many cases more strenuously than they have. I suggest you retract that line of attack before you make yourself look like even more silly. --[[User:Cyberbob240|HAHAHA DISREGARD THAT, I SUCK COCKS]] 08:20, 11 October 2008 (BST)
::::::Not arguing for them, arguing against you. But lolk ill stay out of stuff if its giving you difficulty :)--{{User:Sexylegsread/sig}} 08:22, 11 October 2008 (BST)
:::::::Sorry, but that's one of the shittiest attempts to twist out of an accusation I've ever seen. Not going to fly, sorry. --[[User:Cyberbob240|HAHAHA DISREGARD THAT, I SUCK COCKS]] 08:25, 11 October 2008 (BST)
::::::::Oh your a talented wordsmith if I ever did see one.--{{User:Sexylegsread/sig}} 08:26, 11 October 2008 (BST)
:::::::::Such a shame you aren't. --[[User:Cyberbob240|HAHAHA DISREGARD THAT, I SUCK COCKS]] 08:34, 11 October 2008 (BST)
:::::::::::No u--{{User:Sexylegsread/sig}} 08:49, 11 October 2008 (BST)
:::::::::: Hey look it's Bob.  And he still remembers how to troll people.  What a shocker.--[[User:Kristi of the Dead|Kristi of the Dead]] 08:45, 11 October 2008 (BST)
:::::::::::barely, our epic victory over him has caused my respect for him to plummet.--{{User:J3D/ciggy}} 08:50, 11 October 2008 (BST)
::::::::::::Right, because I'm ''so'' interested in how much some tard on the Internet respects me. Yeah, you just hit that nail right on the head with that one. --[[User:Cyberbob240|HAHAHA DISREGARD THAT, I SUCK COCKS]] 09:07, 11 October 2008 (BST)
I'll arbitrate. Looks interesting. {{User:DanceDanceRevolution/sig}} 08:30, 11 October 2008 (BST)
:Uhhh, I think I already did... :) --{{User:Nubis/sig}} 08:32, 11 October 2008 (BST)
===Inexpert Great Fire Testimony===  
The great fire stuff (Created by J3D and Nick) Was created before february. IT was referred to a lot around the arkham sisters debate. The causes section of the article was created by me, much later. Before that it was just a line about a big fire, and the section referring to amusing locations being targetted. thanks --{{User:Rosslessness/Sig}} 10:41, 11 October 2008 (BST)
:Yeah, I'm pretty sure they did create the page to fit in with their Arkham Sisters nonsense. Does that mean they own it? No. If you create community pages, you give them to the community to share and interlace with the whole Urban Dead, community created, backstory. Trying to make it an ALiM subpage is ridiculous <small>-- [[User:Boxy|<span style="color: Red">boxy</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Boxy|<span style="color: Red">talk</span>]] • [[UDWiki:Image Categorisation|i]]</sup> 10:55 11 October 2008 (BST)</small>
::Wat? Great Fire was way before Arkham Sisters. It should be an ALiM subpage, or directly related somehow, as they compliment each other perfectly.--{{User:Sexylegsread/sig}} 11:04, 11 October 2008 (BST)
:::If Jed, Ros, and I are the only ones to have edited the page, surely we have the right to pull it from the mainspace and put it under ALiM. If none of the editors object then what's the problem?--{{User:Nallan/sig}} 11:12, 11 October 2008 (BST)
::::That's not really a trend we want to start or condone. I hope you can understand why. Also, in this case, the time lapse from creation to relocation is problematic.  I would hate it if author's moved all of the pages they wrote under their own space. It wouldn't be a wiki so much as like personal blogs. --{{User:Nubis/sig}} 11:28, 11 October 2008 (BST)
:::::They moved it because they were not allowed to keep their template.--{{User:Sexylegsread/sig}} 11:32, 11 October 2008 (BST)
::::::As read said, we only wanted to move the page because the way we had had the page for some months suddenly became an issue (brought up by a certain user with an axe to grind, but that's another story). It just makes sense now to leave all that stuff in the ALiM namespace, grouped together. I assure you the template will be less intrusive (btw Nubis i was thinking we'd go for a complete redesign, although i plan on wikiing as minimally as possible in the coming month) however it will not be group neutral for reasons outlined above, and on my talk page.--{{User:J3D/ciggy}} 11:45, 11 October 2008 (BST)
:::::::No axe to grind J3D, I happened to notice the template on one of the pages (I forget which) and didn't think it appropriate. Get over yourself. --[[User:Cyberbob240|HAHAHA DISREGARD THAT, I SUCK COCKS]] 11:48, 11 October 2008 (BST)
::::::::Not to mention that you [http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php?title=User_talk:Cyberbob240&oldid=1285422#ALiM.27s_first_birthday seek out] bob's attentions. I reckon it's because drama creation is good for advertising too <small>-- [[User:Boxy|<span style="color: Red">boxy</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Boxy|<span style="color: Red">talk</span>]] • [[UDWiki:Image Categorisation|i]]</sup> 11:53 11 October 2008 (BST)</small>
::::Can you not see what a mess this would make of the wiki if everyone who created backstory and guide pages started putting their own advertising templates on them, and claiming them as their own? And anyway, you guys are always trying to claim that ALiM itself is a "community project", rather than your own group page that you can do what you like with. I remember the whining that I didn't join in on the "community voting" on it's talk page, when I arced up about that edible locations in malton stuff. Make up your minds, do you want a group page, or a community page. If they're community pages, to be interlaced with locations, suburb and backstory pages, then stop with all the cross-promotional advertising bullshit... if they're your own group pages, then keep them off the community areas of the wiki <small>-- [[User:Boxy|<span style="color: Red">boxy</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Boxy|<span style="color: Red">talk</span>]] • [[UDWiki:Image Categorisation|i]]</sup> 11:45 11 October 2008 (BST)</small>
::::[http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php/Malton_Girl_on_Girl_Parade This] is a good example. This was created by Nick (in the last 2 months) under community space, but clearly on something ALiM related. So, now are you guys going to pull this to your space (please don't), why wasn't it made in your space originally? Why doesn't this have the template? Pages like this do make your case for keeping The Great Fire and the other ALiM pages in your space a bit weak. I don't really care what the final outcome is, I just want some consistency. Either all pages are under your space or they are public. (oh and I want categories on these pages, but that's just me).--{{User:Nubis/sig}} 13:00, 11 October 2008 (BST)
 
 
Jed and I have discussed and we have decided that we will allow for the Great Fire page to be moved into the mainspace, BUT it must keep the template on it, which we will be working on to make less intrusive - but it will retain links to the other projects - bar the featured locations, which will be removed - and also retaining the link to the 2 Cool group page, thereby crediting us with the concept. We feel this is fair, as it has always been on the page, we created the page, and because it links with the other projects.--{{User:Nallan/sig}} 12:40, 11 October 2008 (BST)
 
 
I'm not going to bother reading everything before it because tl;dr. There are community pages but there are also group pages. If someone came and fucked with DORIS' New Baghdad page I'd flip a shit. If someone fucked with Red Rum's Siege of Jerusalem page they'd be pissed. If someone messed with the DHPD's DMZ page they'd be pissed. My point? The Great Fire is a group sponsored page. --[[User:Saromu|Sonny Corleone]] <sup>[[DORIS]] [[MSD]]  [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=91a8pHj7V9k pr0n]</sup> 22:43, 11 October 2008 (BST)
:Those are radically different situations. --[[User:Cyberbob240|HAHAHA DISREGARD THAT, I SUCK COCKS]] 22:52, 11 October 2008 (BST)
 
==[[Special:Listusers|Everyone on this wiki]] versus [[User:Iscariot|Iscariot]]==
For being a cuntbagrashshitbitch.--{{User:J3D/ciggy}} 16:32, 5 July 2008 (BST)
 
Fuck yes. Let's do this shit. --[[User:Cyberbob240|brb, church]] <sup>[[DORIS]] [[CGR]] [[Project UnWelcome|U!]]</sup> 16:57, 5 July 2008 (BST)
 
Oh boy...Who's gonna arbitrate?  Everyone's gonna be biased. --{{User:Axe Hack/Sig}} 17:03, 5 July 2008 (BST)
:A reliable source tells me "There is no precedent against an involved party also acting as arbitrator". All in favour of Iscariot arbying say GRAAAAAGH!...i mean, aye!--{{User:J3D/ciggy}} 17:12, 5 July 2008 (BST)
::::I will accept Iscariot, not only is he fair, balanced and ruggedly handsome, he's also modest about it. -- {{User:Iscariot/Signature}} 17:46, 7 July 2008 (BST)
::I'm expecting another Arby's case after this one...Whatever.  AYE! --{{User:Axe Hack/Sig}} 17:13, 5 July 2008 (BST)
 
I am opting out of this as it was made without my consent. --[[User:Grim_s|The Grimch]] <sup>[[Project UnWelcome|U!]] [[Project Evil|E!]] [[We are Trolls!|WAT!]]</sup> 17:40, 5 July 2008 (BST)
:In that case are you willing to arbitrate?--{{User:J3D/ciggy}} 03:29, 6 July 2008 (BST)
 
Imma opting out tambien, for above reason, I will arbitrate.... although I show a clear bias.... towards Iscariot, for being this Wiki's savior--{{User:WOOT/sig}} 03:43, 7 July 2008 (BST)
:Oh noez! Bias! Must reject you in the interests of, like, fairness and shit. -- {{User:Iscariot/Signature}} 17:46, 7 July 2008 (BST)
::Surely you mean everyone '''else''' on the wiki? --{{User:Rosslessness/Sig}} 18:05, 7 July 2008 (BST)
:::I didn't make this case, and therefore could not comment on the intentions of the user in question. However for my case the prose is correct, although I have brought the case, I expect to be bound by the verdict along with everyone else. -- {{User:Iscariot/Signature}} 18:10, 7 July 2008 (BST)
 
==[[User:Iscariot|Iscariot]] versus [[Special:Listusers|Everyone on this wiki]]==
Regarding suburb pages -- {{User:Iscariot/Signature}} 22:16, 4 July 2008 (BST)
:You are an idiot. -- {{User:Krazy_Monkey/sig}} 22:17, 4 July 2008 (BST)
::What regarding suburb pages? If a case is being brought against me i want to know specifics. Also who will arbitrate? We have to get a wiki outsider...--{{User:J3D/ciggy}} 01:19, 5 July 2008 (BST)
:::Specifics are brought in the opening statement, the general subject has been provided. There is no precedent against an involved party also acting as arbitrator. I shall accept anyone who I consider can evaluate the facts objectively. -- {{User:Iscariot/Signature}} 01:35, 5 July 2008 (BST)
::::Heh heh, wouldn't that mean that everyone on the wiki would have to accept the arbitrator as well? --[[User:Kikashie|Kikashie]] <sup>[[Dulston Alliance/Newspaper|Read the Dispatch!]]</sup> 01:43, 5 July 2008 (BST)
 
This is the single dumbest fucking arbitration case I've seen in a good while. I hope you die, because your death will leave this world a better place. --[[User:Cyberbob240|brb, church]] <sup>[[DORIS]] [[CGR]] [[Project UnWelcome|U!]]</sup> 01:46, 5 July 2008 (BST)
:Worse than the time Karek and I made a case against each other for no reason. However if it is ok with everyone I drop out of the case and put myself forward for Arbitatortot. Does everyone accept? --[[User:Saromu|Sonny Corleone]] <sup>[[DORIS]] [[MSD]]  [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=91a8pHj7V9k pr0n]</sup> 01:58, 5 July 2008 (BST)
::I will accept provided you are also bound by the result. -- {{User:Iscariot/Signature}} 17:47, 7 July 2008 (BST)
 
I'd be willing to arbitrate. I've never posted on a suburb page and don't intend to. {{User:DarkStar/sig}} 09:36, 5 July 2008 (BST)
:You are someone and thus an interested party. As for myself, i refuse arbitration on the grounds of "What the fuck?" --[[User:Grim_s|The Grimch]] <sup>[[Project UnWelcome|U!]] [[Project Evil|E!]] [[We are Trolls!|WAT!]]</sup> 09:52, 5 July 2008 (BST)
::Right. Its simple. Next new user to register is arbie. No experience of the wiki, so the perfect neutral person. --{{User:Rosslessness/Sig}} 10:25, 5 July 2008 (BST)
:::But than that next new user would be part of "Everyone".  Unless you don't wish to count that...Quick!  Everyone get a new IP address and use that IP to get an account on this wiki! --{{User:Axe Hack/Sig}} 17:05, 5 July 2008 (BST)
 
How about everyone involved posts a random number between 0-9. We add up all the numbers and then use the sum as a UD ID number. Whoever owns that character has to be the arbitraitor. That seems fair and balanced. Let's post our numbers alphabetically. (I mean post them in order by user names alphabetically, not eight, four, five, nine  etc.) --{{User:Nubis/sig}} 17:21, 6 July 2008 (BST)
:Good idea, in principle. In reality, it means it's more that likely we'll end up with [[User:Finis Valorum|Finis]]. --[[User:Bob_Fortune|Sir Bob Fortune]] <sup>[[Red Rum|RR]]</sup> 06:57, 7 July 2008 (BST)
::Oh snap!!! I post a random number: 9! <u><big>[[User:DanceDanceRevolution|<span style="color:red;font-weight:bold">D</span>]]</big><nowiki>ance</nowiki><big>[[User Talk:DanceDanceRevolution|<span style="color:lime;font-weight:bold">D</span>]]</big><nowiki>ance</nowiki><big>[[User:DanceDanceRevolution/media|<span style="color:Aqua;font-weight:bold">R</span>]]</big>evolution</u> 17:37, 7 July 2008 (BST)
::4, and jesus DDR, shorten your siggy... its so clutersome....--{{User:WOOT/sig}} 19:32, 7 July 2008 (BST)
:::Well, that's ID=13 and that belongs to [[http://urbandead.com/profile.cgi?id=13 Holly]].  She links [[http://several-bees.livejournal.com/ this LJ]]. The system works! --{{User:Nubis/sig}} 03:43, 8 July 2008 (BST)
You do realise you are bringing a case against YOURSELF (among many other people), right?  Oh, and also Kevan?  {{User:Swiers/Sig}} 04:19, 8 July 2008 (BST)
 
You know, Iscariot is part of "everyone on this wiki," so technically this case is also against himself... --{{User:A Helpful Little Gnome/Sig}} 04:30, 8 July 2008 (BST)
 
===[[User:Krazy Monkey|Cheeseman]] vs. [[User:thekooks|Kooks]]===
He blatantly stole my sheep. Then Pked me. '''Twice'''. Then proceeded to mount my sheep in an inappropriate manner. This happened Friday and despite several attempts to ask him to return the sheep both in-game and via other means, he refuses to acknowledge that the event took place!! But it did and I want vengenence. Coz I have a Witness in the form of [[User:Dudemeister|Darth Dude]], who saw the whole thing and definitely not was on IRC with me about 15 minutes ago listening to my plan to incriminate kooks and helping me falsify evidence because this: [http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php/Image:SheepProof.JPG] is real. Really. And this is not fake at all and in no way is a dig at the case below this one. At all. This is a 100% genuine problem that can only be solved by Arbitration and who gives a toss if its an in-game issue and if sheep aren't in the game, this is real. I will take any Arbitrator except kooks or Grim. Thank you. -- [[User:Krazy Monkey|Cheeseman]] <sup>[[Project Welcome|W!]][[The Randoms|Random]][[User_Talk:Krazy Monkey|Talk]]</sup> 23:22, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
 
Disclaimer: Events may or may not be fictitious and may or may not be just a figment of the Complaining Party's imagination.
 
I offer to throw this out....I mean arbitrate...--{{User:Blood Panther/Sig}} 02:36, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
 
Er, I think that someone got a bit of a stern warning for doing what you are doing now with the arbitration page as a joke. You might want to delete this before it causes any more crap on this page.--{{User:Seventythree/Sig}} 00:53, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
 
:I accept this arbritration case and will representing myself. I do not accept Blood Panther as Arbritrator.--[[User:Thekooks|Thekooks]] 15:30, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
::I second that. -- [[User:Krazy Monkey|Cheeseman]] <sup>[[Project Welcome|W!]][[The Randoms|Random]][[User_Talk:Krazy Monkey|Talk]]</sup> 21:30, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
 
==[[Special:Listusers|Everyone on this wiki]] versus [[User:Iscariot|Iscariot]]==
For being a cuntbagrashshitbitch.--{{User:J3D/ciggy}} 16:32, 5 July 2008 (BST)
 
Fuck yes. Let's do this shit. --[[User:Cyberbob240|brb, church]] <sup>[[DORIS]] [[CGR]] [[Project UnWelcome|U!]]</sup> 16:57, 5 July 2008 (BST)
 
Oh boy...Who's gonna arbitrate?  Everyone's gonna be biased. --{{User:Axe Hack/Sig}} 17:03, 5 July 2008 (BST)
:A reliable source tells me "There is no precedent against an involved party also acting as arbitrator". All in favour of Iscariot arbying say GRAAAAAGH!...i mean, aye!--{{User:J3D/ciggy}} 17:12, 5 July 2008 (BST)
::I'm expecting another Arby's case after this one...Whatever.  AYE! --{{User:Axe Hack/Sig}} 17:13, 5 July 2008 (BST)
 
I am opting out of this as it was made without my consent. --[[User:Grim_s|The Grimch]] <sup>[[Project UnWelcome|U!]] [[Project Evil|E!]] [[We are Trolls!|WAT!]]</sup> 17:40, 5 July 2008 (BST)
:In that case are you willing to arbitrate?--{{User:J3D/ciggy}} 03:29, 6 July 2008 (BST)
Logic defeats it. You can't have everyone against someone and then bring an arbitration case. Who the fuck would arbitrate? --{{User:Axe27/Sig}} 18:32, 7 July 2008 (BST)
 
==[[User:Iscariot|Iscariot]] versus [[Special:Listusers|Everyone on this wiki]]==
Regarding suburb pages -- {{User:Iscariot/Signature}} 22:16, 4 July 2008 (BST)
:You are an idiot. -- {{User:Krazy_Monkey/sig}} 22:17, 4 July 2008 (BST)
::What regarding suburb pages? If a case is being brought against me i want to know specifics. Also who will arbitrate? We have to get a wiki outsider...--{{User:J3D/ciggy}} 01:19, 5 July 2008 (BST)
:::Specifics are brought in the opening statement, the general subject has been provided. There is no precedent against an involved party also acting as arbitrator. I shall accept anyone who I consider can evaluate the facts objectively. -- {{User:Iscariot/Signature}} 01:35, 5 July 2008 (BST)
::::Heh heh, wouldn't that mean that everyone on the wiki would have to accept the arbitrator as well? --[[User:Kikashie|Kikashie]] <sup>[[Dulston Alliance/Newspaper|Read the Dispatch!]]</sup> 01:43, 5 July 2008 (BST)
 
This is the single dumbest fucking arbitration case I've seen in a good while. I hope you die, because your death will leave this world a better place. --[[User:Cyberbob240|brb, church]] <sup>[[DORIS]] [[CGR]] [[Project UnWelcome|U!]]</sup> 01:46, 5 July 2008 (BST)
:Worse than the time Karek and I made a case against each other for no reason. However if it is ok with everyone I drop out of the case and put myself forward for Arbitatortot. Does everyone accept? --[[User:Saromu|Sonny Corleone]] <sup>[[DORIS]] [[MSD]]  [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=91a8pHj7V9k pr0n]</sup> 01:58, 5 July 2008 (BST)
 
I'd be willing to arbitrate. I've never posted on a suburb page and don't intend to. {{User:DarkStar/sig}} 09:36, 5 July 2008 (BST)
:You are someone and thus an interested party. As for myself, i refuse arbitration on the grounds of "What the fuck?" --[[User:Grim_s|The Grimch]] <sup>[[Project UnWelcome|U!]] [[Project Evil|E!]] [[We are Trolls!|WAT!]]</sup> 09:52, 5 July 2008 (BST)
::Right. Its simple. Next new user to register is arbie. No experience of the wiki, so the perfect neutral person. --{{User:Rosslessness/Sig}} 10:25, 5 July 2008 (BST)
:::But than that next new user would be part of "Everyone".  Unless you don't wish to count that...Quick!  Everyone get a new IP address and use that IP to get an account on this wiki! --{{User:Axe Hack/Sig}} 17:05, 5 July 2008 (BST)
 
This crap makes me speachless. Don't spam up the main arbitration page. - [[User:Jedaz|Jedaz]] '''- [[Signature Race|<span style="font-size:85%; color: #639">12:47/6/07/2008</span>]]'''
:You're next for an all encompassing arby case.--{{User:J3D/ciggy}} 12:56, 6 July 2008 (BST)
 
==Need Arbitration==
Im not exactly sure where to do this but this is the talk page and It was suggested I get one. Anyways Yesterday I mad an edit on the Ackland Mall news annnouncing M-BEK declares war on AMS. M-BEK and AMS has had 2 wars beforehand and we're looking for another one just as fun. However out of nowehere a /zom/ member posted I was killed by a zombie and said I was buthurt or something like that. I really didnt care too much cause he had his own opinion. HWOEVER someone called [[RedPuppy|RedPuppy]] delted all my coments and posted up a bunch of bullcrap claiming our group is attacking Crimson clan, /zom/, and insuted my chronicle I posted up. I dont know who the guy was but I undid his comments. He kept redoing them and then I tried just to delete the whole thing but that didnt work out for him. He was redoing everything and was attempting to troll our group when it has NOTHING to do with them. Its obivously some disgruntled survivor who hates PKers. Anyways im seeking for the whole thing just do be deleted if he cant get over it.--{{User:Doctor Oberman/sig}} 19:42, 4 August 2008 (BST)

Latest revision as of 06:45, 15 April 2012

Message History

General Discussion

Text Change

in Current Arbitrators

The following users have placed their hand up as users who are willing to be contacted to act as an Arbitrator. The role of Arbitrator is not restricted to the Administration Team; any user can be contacted as an Arbitrator, even those not listed below, and use this page for the arbitration, so long as both parties agree to the Arbitrator. Users who wish to place their hand up as an Arbitrator should place their name below on the list, using *{{usr|YourUserPage}}

Change in bold. --hagnat 19:51, 18 June 2011 (BST)

I changed it, as it is simply an explaination the current situation -- boxy 10:26, 20 June 2011 (BST)

DON'T BE FUCKING UP MY PAGE

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

Punishments for violations

Boxy said:
Arbies violations are a day ban anyway. "As a note, by requesting an Arbitration, all parties are thus obliged to accept the outcome of the Arbitration. Not doing will be considered Vandalism, and such vandalism attempts will be treated as if the vandal has already received two warnings" -- boxy talk • teh rulz 12:43 8 July 2009 (BST)

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

Why? If someone already has a bunch of active (ie unstruck) escalations on their record I don't think it's at all unfair to punish them harder for violating an arbitration ruling than someone who might only have a few or none. --Cyberbob 13:41, 9 July 2009 (BST)
Its potentially unfair because we have had some pretty poor Arbies decisions in the past and breaching them should not carry such a harsh punishment as a 3 step escalation. I know in most such cases the Sysops would probably find not vandalism but why even have the threat? Also even in clear cut cases like the MisterGame one where some sysops actually said his action was vandalism only because of the Arbies ruling it would seem unfair to push someone to step 3 in one single bound. Obviously MG got only a single escalation as this took him to the usual 1 day ban anyway but I just think that taking a clean sheet to 3 escalations for an arbies dispute is a little OTT. I suggested recording it separately but even just making it clear for future reference that each instance should never actually count as more than 1 escalation for recording purposes would make it a lot fairer for clean sheet offenders.
As for punishing repeat vandals more harshly, thats really a different point and I don't really disagree with you on it in general but would point out that in a heated disagreement it would be easy to go from a 1 day warning to an outright ban through petty and stupid stubbornness resulting from a bad arbies ruling... As such limiting it to a separate VB track might have merit.--Honestmistake 13:59, 9 July 2009 (BST)
As always you are more than free to suggest a modification to the arbitration punishment policy in A/PD. I'd like to point out that losing it in the heat of the moment is no excuse. This is the Internet, and you can (should) always get up and walk away from your computer if you're getting RELLY ANGERY. As for bad rulings, if a ruling is truly bad (this does not include simply "against you") there is the option of having it repealed with another arbitration case. This pretty much only works if the ruling is like on a Nalikill scale of bad - the idea is that you pick your arbitrator so by and large you have to just suck it up. --Cyberbob 14:09, 9 July 2009 (BST)
It's not really a massive problem; I don't remember it ever causing serious drama; so a policy would probably be overkill at this stage. I think a sensible discussion and perhaps minor clarification to the existing rule is all that is needed... The instant ban thing just seems more like it should be a way to enforce your "stepping away from the keyboard" than an actual Vandalism ban (at least for a first infraction) and for a single (possibly minor) thing to potentially need 3 de-escalations is more punishment than i think would likely be merited. --Honestmistake 14:56, 9 July 2009 (BST)
Perhaps it could be recorded on A/VD as the next escalation (a warning if it's a first offense), with a note that it is an arbitration violation and carries a min. 24hr ban regardless -- boxy talk • teh rulz 21:29 9 July 2009 (BST)
That seems fair... its really only the potential to go from 0 to 3 escalations that I think is unfair so modified report would easily avoid the problem.--Honestmistake 00:33, 10 July 2009 (BST)
Wait. You think that if you have 1 or 0 warnings and you violate a ruling that your warnings count is magically filled up as well as the ban? Because that's not the case at all. --Cyberbob 02:07, 10 July 2009 (BST)
Yeah, my belief is that it would increment "Warning Status" up one notch, with a 24 hour ban, which would also be noted on Vandal Data. If that's not the idea being suggested, I like mine better. --Darth Sensitive Talk W! 02:13, 10 July 2009 (BST)
Actually thats exactly what I am getting at, if someone with 0 or 1 previous warnings violates an arbies and is slapped with an Vandal Ban will it get recorded as 1 warning or a 24 hour ban with a note to clarify that it was a result of an Arbies case? If not and its just logged as a 24 hour ban then the next infringement could well be treated as a 4th warning/escalation (48 hours?) I don't even know if its ever happened that someone with such a clean sheet has received a ban this way (and I am not prepared to trawl through the records to check) but I just wanted to clarify that it wouldn't happen that way. --Honestmistake 09:34, 10 July 2009 (BST)
At the moment, it's recorded as a 24hr ban (usually with "arbitration violation" or similar after it), and if subsequent warnings are given for other (non arbies) stuff, the lower warnings are filled in before moving on to the 48hr ban. I'm not sure of what to do if another arbies violation happens? I guess you move on to 48hr ban? -- boxy talk • teh rulz 14:00 10 July 2009 (BST)
Makes sense to me.--Darth Sensitive Talk W! 17:37, 10 July 2009 (BST)

Editing during a case is frankly bad form

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

For one thing, people should not be able to refuse arbitration. I'm really glad that particular tidbit remained out of the public eye until now (thanks for that you tool, and Hagnat too) because it renders Arbitration 100% useless. Literally nobody would accept cases brought against them. I annoy the shit out of someone (staying within the bounds of vandalism) and they would have no way of making me stop outside of having to repeatedly delete my posts to their talk pages. BUT OMIGOD WE HAVE TO COME TO AN AGREEMANT EEEEEEEEEEEE
Fuck that noise. Users need to be able to easily and painlessly ban people from their talk pages and be able to have A/VB backing them up. --Cyberbob 10:07, 9 June 2009 (BST)
So junk all edits since last discussion. Anything else you feel need to be added, clarified? --RosslessnessWant a Location Image? 10:14, 9 June 2009 (BST)
I think that to reinforce the inability to refuse arbitration a clause should be added somewhere stating that if you try to refuse to participate, or refuse all arbitrators, then the person bringing the case will be able to pick whoever they like. --Cyberbob 10:23, 9 June 2009 (BST)
Anyone he likes? So say I had a case against NEWB x and I picked iscariot that would be fine? If this is the case, can we make it part of the process that you must inform the target of arbitration that you're bringing the case and that non attendance will result in it proceeding anyway, perhaps by means of a standardized template? --RosslessnessWant a Location Image? 10:28, 9 June 2009 (BST)
A notification like that is something we should have had for ages. As for the other, yes; though I suspect that Iscariot will be more likely to come down on the side of the newbie. If people start abusing the system to pick on newbies I would think that they would be open to A/VB cases, as they would for abusing any other admin page. --Cyberbob 10:36, 9 June 2009 (BST)
I'll throw up a horribly ugly template later on today for people to look at. --RosslessnessWant a Location Image? 11:16, 9 June 2009 (BST)
Another option is to have some sort of clause that refusal to participate in arbitration (including the old "refusing all impartial arbitrators" trick), and a continuation of the edit war or behaviour stated in the case, would be a clear indication of bad faith, and hence a greater likelyhood of a warning? It gives them the option to just walk away from a dispute without having to say that they give up, which is fair enough as long as that is the end of it -- boxy talk • teh rulz 11:10 9 June 2009 (BST)

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

Do you like prunes?

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

One edit in the past two months should be enough for a user to mantain its name in the list. --People's Commissar Hagnat talk mod 21:54, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, that's fine. Other people have used similar edits previously. Linkthewindow  Talk  21:57, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

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

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

Time limit on cases

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

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

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

Discussion of Arbitration Cases

Oberst vs Cheese

Isn't the page supposed to remain unedited through the course of Arbitration? I see lots of editing still taking place. ~Vsig.png 00:43, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Move it to the talk page if you feel strongly about it fucktard. Generaloberst 0:44, 10 April 2012 (BST)
Move what to which talk page? I'm talking about the edits to Blitz after the arbies already started. ~Vsig.png 01:00, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
Feel free to go to A/PT if you feel an edit conflict is going on. -- Spiderzed█ 01:12, 10 April 2012 (BST)
Why? It would just get protected in whichever state it is in now. All editing the page is doing now is making it harder for an arbitrator to make a clear decision. You'd think both parties would want to avoid that. That's why its pretty standard practice for a page to go hands off once it goes to Arbies for edit conflict. Although it would appear Obesrt has taken some amount of license whilst "adding back in" Cheese's edits. And that's recisely why the rule exists. ~Vsig.png 01:27, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
standard practice? It's the rules. Revert and protect DANCEDANCEREVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 01:43, 10 April 2012 (BST)

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

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

The policy discussion has still two days left before being cycled, while the template talk page has no closing date. Still, this looks like one of the many arbies that fade away with a whimper. -- Spiderzed▋ 15:52, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
The template talk has two closing dates: Feb. 28th for nominations, and March 15 for voting. -MHSstaff 17:43, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
I refuse to rescind this claim. Either it's solved through PD or the template talk, or I'm having your group forcibly moved to the correct section through arbies.--Yonnua Koponen Talk ! Contribs 16:07, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
Forcibly moved? --RosslessnessWant a Location Image? 16:47, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
I'm assuming an impartial arbitrator will force them to move it to the correct section.--Yonnua Koponen Talk ! Contribs 18:13, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, we don't force, we rule. Failure to follow the ruling results in a double escalation. --RosslessnessWant a Location Image? 18:16, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
Ergh, it's effective forcing. And since it's a community page, an arbitrator can put it in a specific way and tell involved parties not to change it, so technically they can't be forced to do it, but it can be forced to happen by an arbitrator.--Yonnua Koponen Talk ! Contribs 18:44, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
But surely you'd want a precedent, so future issues of editing the page could be handled quickly? You want something that allows you to modify the page regardless of who changes it? --RosslessnessWant a Location Image? 18:46, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
Actually, I think he's most interested in waving his E-penis around. Forcibly.--- | T | BALLS! | 18:53 23 February 2011(UTC)
You know, if this ass heap does go to arbies again, count me in on BCH's side. This would likely affect the Knights in an adverse manner. For hate's sake I spit my last breath at thee 20:33, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
Shit, count me in too. Let's all jump in! -- ϑanceϑanceℜevolution 23:09, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
Thanks kids. --RosslessnessWant a Location Image? 23:11, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
Spaceballs.jpg
 ARBIES
AKA, E-PENIS SWORDFIGHT!

--

| T | BALLS! | 00:13 24 February 2011(UTC)

"Tyx and I should both accept, and I'm not representing the DA, I'm representing the wiki as a game resource.--Yonnua Koponen T G P ^^^ 19:36, 10 February 2011 (UTC) " As a User of the Wiki with a very strong interest in keeping the Wiki as an accurate and practical-to-use Game Resource, I found this statement highly amusing. --DTPraise KnowledgePK 01:11, 24 Feabruary 2011 (UTC)
This should be the best spot for this, I think. Just for everyone to know, I'm not going to participate if this goes to arbitration. I don't have the time for it, and honestly, I really doubt I'm going to get a fair ruling. Spiderzed has too many friends here, and I can see that apart from Yonnua, I have no support. As a newcomer here, I've got no chance at all. Frankly, it's not my problem if the wiki is full of inaccurate information, so I don't care too much, to be honest. This isn't intended as a shot at anyone, I'm just letting everyone know i have no interest in pursuing this. If Yonnua wants to, that's fine.--tyx94 19:45, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
aww i just made popcorn-- bitch 20:53 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Izzy vs Bunghole

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

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

Zombie Lord vs Lelouch

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

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

hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahah ahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahah ahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahah ahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha--Orange Talk 19:59, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Gaf, Lulz. Also Zombie Lord, why did you separate the cases again. Merge them with the 2 below, they are the same. You aren't going to get 3 separate cases, only more drama. If you continue to try to stir up a mess on purpose the only thing you'll get is a ban. --Umbrella-White.pngThadeous OakleyUmbrella-White.png 20:03, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
Spaceballs.jpg
 ARBIES
AKA, E-PENIS SWORDFIGHT!

-- ϑanceϑanceℜevolution 01:10, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Zombie Lord vs Verance

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

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


Please Don't feed the Troll!!!

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

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


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

Merge with the one case above please as it basically resolves around the same.--Umbrella-White.pngThadeous OakleyUmbrella-White.png 15:23, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Spaceballs.jpg
 ARBIES
AKA, E-PENIS SWORDFIGHT!

-- ϑanceϑanceℜevolution 01:10, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Iscariot vs Sgt Raiden

Discussion Move to archive

Retrieved from "http://wiki.urbandead.com//index.php?title=UDWiki_talk:Administration/Arbitration&oldid=1994985"