UDWiki talk:Administration/Arbitration: Difference between revisions

From The Urban Dead Wiki
Jump to navigationJump to search
 
(80 intermediate revisions by 29 users not shown)
Line 4: Line 4:
=General Discussion=
=General Discussion=


==Do you like prunes?==
== Text Change ==
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)
: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)
:Yeah, that's fine. Other people have used similar edits previously. {{User:Linkthewindow/Sig}} 21:57, 9 January 2009 (UTC)


==:'(==
in '''Current Arbitrators'''
No one ever picks me to arbitrate. Makes me want to cry...--{{User:Suicidalangel/Sig}} 21:34, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
: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>}}
:I tried to once, check the Karek vs Nick and Jed case. Unfortunately nick vetoed :( --{{User:J3D/ciggy}} 07:02, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
Change in bold. --<small>[[User:Hagnat|hagnat]]</small> 19:51, 18 June 2011 (BST)
::No one picks me either. I love Arby's. --[[User:Saromu|Sonny Corleone]] <sup>[[DORIS]] [[MSD]]  [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=91a8pHj7V9k pr0n]</sup> 07:09, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
:[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>
:::Yeah, I know. But I never get to aribitrate. And the difference between me and you Sonny, is I'm trustable in just about ALL cases. :) --{{User:Suicidalangel/Sig}} 12:44, 22 November 2008 (UTC)


==[[A/A]]==
==DON'T BE FUCKING UP MY PAGE==
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)
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)


==How to start a case==
==Punishments for violations==
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)
{{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)}}
:dear god. No. --{{User:Hagnat/sig}} 18:28, 9 April 2008 (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?  --[[User:Honestmistake|Honestmistake]] 13:06, 9 July 2009 (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)
: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)
: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)
::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.
::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)
::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)
:::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)
:::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)
::::I did say I would name specific individuals if it was necessary...maybe some day. --{{User:Showcase/sig}} 18:05, 10 April 2008 (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)
:Also, good luck finding an arbitrator willing to take the case. -- {{User:Iscariot/Signature}} 18:44, 9 April 2008 (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>
::I'll do it. I'll arbitrate if both parties want me. -- {{User:Krazy_Monkey/sig}} 21:02, 9 April 2008 (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.--[[User:Honestmistake|Honestmistake]] 00:33, 10 July 2009 (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)
:::::::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)
::::For unfunny trolling, you would be banned in the first day. --{{User:Gardenator/sig}} 01:21, 28 June 2008 (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==
==Editing during a case is frankly bad form==
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)
: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)


== An index? ==
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)
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)
: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)
: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)
::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)
::Hell, we should do it for every Admin page. --{{User:Axe27/Sig}} 22:37, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
:::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)
:::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)
::::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)
::::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)
:::::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)
:::::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)
::::::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)
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==
::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>
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)
:Strangely, the code is visible with View Source. --[[User:Toejam|Toejam]] 18:28, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
::This has happened with my first talk page archive too. It's really weird... --{{User:Hagnat/sig}} 17:12, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
:::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)


==Arbitration Revamp==
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)
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==
==Do you like prunes?==
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)
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)
: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)
: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)
 
:Yeah, that's fine. Other people have used similar edits previously. {{User:Linkthewindow/Sig}} 21:57, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
==sound of silence==
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...}}
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==
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)
: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>'''
::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)
 
==Removal of arbitrator list==
 
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)
: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)
: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==
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=
 
==[[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)
 
Well, I've never arbied before and this seems like a good case to start on :P --{{User:Ashley Valentine/sig}} 22:34, 14 October 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)
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)
: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)
:Thanks SA. Someone had to do this :/. {{User:Linkthewindow/Sig}} 06:41, 11 January 2009 (UTC)


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)
==Time limit on cases==
: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>]]'''
{{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.}}
:You're next for an all encompassing arby case.--{{User:J3D/ciggy}} 12:56, 6 July 2008 (BST)


On a serious note, I wouldn't mind arbitrating thsi case. I've never posted and/or took part in anything 'suburb-page-admin' related within the wiki itself and I know the policies that this wiki has in place. I'd mentioned that I'd never arbied on this wiki before, but that doesn't mean that I don't have experience dealing with issues. --{{User:Ashley Valentine/sig}} 22:39, 14 October 2008 (BST)
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.
:You are aware this was 3 months ago, right?--{{User:J3D/ciggy}} 22:42, 14 October 2008 (BST)
::Nope, not really. I guess I should've read a time stamp, at least.
::Well, now I've made a fool of myself I may as well leave it on ._. --{{User:Ashley Valentine/sig}} 22:43, 14 October 2008 (BST)


==Need Arbitration==
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)
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 [[User: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)
:Have you tried to seek a non-arby means to end this first. By your description, this is borderline [[A/VB|vandalism]]. {{User:Linkthewindow/Sig}} 09:35, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
::The edits seem to be long gone, so it's a bit late to do anything about it know. Such behaviour needs to be sorted out in vandal banning <small>-- [[User:Boxy|<span style="color: Red">boxy</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Boxy|<span style="color: Red">talk</span>]] • [[The Rules|teh rulz]]</sup> 09:14 21 November 2008 (BST)</small>
:::Thanks for signing my comment Boxy. Is there a time limit on how long an instance has to pass before it can no longer be taken to A/VB? {{User:Linkthewindow/Sig}} 09:35, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
::::No, not really, but it would have to be pretty serious to bother months later. The main problem is that the [http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php?title=Ackland_Mall&action=history page revisions] (diff comparisons) in question here seem to have happened before the last history purge, making them inaccessible, and proving such a case extremely difficult <small>-- [[User:Boxy|<span style="color: Red">boxy</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Boxy|<span style="color: Red">talk</span>]] • [[The Rules|teh rulz]]</sup> 09:56 21 November 2008 (BST)</small>


== Kristi of the Dead vs. Recruitment==
= 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)


Either you lot drop this stupid anti DEM policy about how we advertise or I want everyone that's in an organization in any capacity to be lumped together on one page how we are. That means everyone in the DA has to be on one page and everyone in the NMC and Beerhah as well. Either that or you let the DEM advertise like all these other organizations get to. I'm looking for the [[MCDU]] and [[AH]] to have their own pages. That's not so much to ask is it? I mean the Philosophe Knights get to put adds in both the PK sections and the Survivor sections. So I mean your bias against us must not have anything to do with taking up space. I can't really write Wiki policy very well and since you guys put us in this situation without ever talking to us first I'm taking the wiki to arby's.--[[User:Kristi of the Dead|Kristi of the Dead]] 01:54, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
===[[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>


Well, first off, you need someone to represent "Recruitment." <s>Perhaps a discussion at the Recruitment talk page would be in order? Anyway, I'll post a note there, even though I think this is the wrong place. </s> {{User:Linkthewindow/Sig}} 05:23, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
===Izzy vs Bunghole===
:Whoops, looks like there has been quite a heated discussion there for some time. Anyway, Kirsti, how are you supposed to challange, you know a ''page''. Arbies are designed for user-user mediation, not when people get upset over the contents on a page (unless said upsetness causes an edit war.) {{User:Linkthewindow/Sig}} 05:31, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
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)
::I'm charging the entire wiki that supports the use of the recruitment page as it is written now.  The unfair treatment of groups based on a policy that is selectively enforced by the wiki at large is unfair and deserves a resolution.--[[User:Kristi of the Dead|Kristi of the Dead]] 06:04, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
: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)
::::You can't take the whole wiki to arbies, Kristi. Name the main ones enforcing this on the recruitment page (and they can choose one or more representative/s), pick an independent arbitrator, and then move on to making your cases <small>-- [[User:Boxy|<span style="color: Red">boxy</span>]] <sup>[[User talk:Boxy|<span style="color: Red">talk</span>]] • [[The Rules|teh rulz]]</sup> 00:40 20 November 2008 (BST)</small>
:::::Iscariot is the do nothing in charge of that page.  Good luck getting him to do anything.--[[User:Kristi of the Dead|Kristi of the Dead]] 03:24, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
:::This isn't exactly what I meant. Anyway, the question that needs to be addressed is where to draw the line on what is an individual group. The thing that's the major sticking point would probably be the fact that membership is interdependent in the DEM, the 3 character rule causes that and the secrecy of the group/s makes it very difficult to differentiate between them from the outside. That being said none of this would be an issue if the content rules were less rigid, there is no reason why the DEM shouldn't be able to include small ads for all of it's groups in it's recruitment ad but with the content limits now that is quite impossible. Maybe if we went back to an older system?--<small>[[User:Karek#K|Karek]]<sup><font face="Monotype Corsiva">[[User:Karek/ProjDev/OmegaMap|maps?!]]</font></sup></small> 06:53, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
::::We're looking to get the MCDU, and AH their own recruitment pages as well as any group that joins our organization from here on out.  The point is either you enforce the rule fairly across the board with no more of this everyone is ok but the DEM crap or you let us have two new free pages 1 for AH and 1 for the MCDU (though in truth the made up problem of crowding on the recruitment page was designed to punish survivor groups like the DEM and the DHPD so I'd like to see it done away with entirely).  By the letter of the rule there's plenty of organizations that should be forced to have one page but aren't this rule is selectively enforced and when it is enforced it is unfair and punishing to us.  Because now when an organization joins the DEM they have to give up their ad.  That's not fair and it's a penalty you've pushed on the DEM to the exclusion of all others here on the wiki.  Also the 3 character rule has nothing to do with this...the DA has no alt rules at all and yet they're a ok to post as many recruitment ads as they want.  And in fact I charge that it is the wiki that is responsible for much of the confusion with the DEM and its member groups.  By forcing us all to advertise together you insinuate that we are not separate groups.  It's easier for people to say that we aren't because of this unfair policy made for not so good faith reasons. --[[User:Kristi of the Dead|Kristi of the Dead]] 03:24, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
:::::I don't enforce the rules there at all, it's a user made and user moderated page. I'm trying to help you out here by proposing something I think would be a more than appropriate compromise and would actually lead to all of your member groups having their recruitment ads group together with each other inside of a larger ad. That being said, if the DA is being allowed to do this and you aren't then there certainly is something wrong with that.--<small>[[User:Karek#K|Karek]]<sup><font face="Monotype Corsiva">[[User:Karek/ProjDev/OmegaMap|maps?!]]</font></sup></small> 17:37, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
::::::I'm sorry Karek I didn't mean to insinuate that you did run the page sorry for that.  I'm sorta used to us arguing about things and had assumed your opinion to be one way when it was the the other. Look I'm just after a fair resolution to this situation.  Something that Iscariot has been unwilling or unable to do for whatever reason.  But as the rule stands now the DEM is being unfairly targeted with this rule to the exclusion of all others. And there are plenty of other organizations that need to be forced to do the same thing we are but aren't being forced to do such.  Mostly as a result of the real reason the rule was written in the first place combined with Iscariots inability to separate his PK character from his Wiki persona that rules the recruitment page.  I like your idea Karek...anything that is more fair than the current system would be appreciated.  The entire rule is biased against the DEM as was its purpose.  It's not being enforced on others it seems it was a special rule made up to punish groups that want to join the DEM.  Which is unfair.  I want it gone, modified, or apply to all other organizations in the game.--[[User:Kristi of the Dead|Kristi of the Dead]] 02:59, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
::::::Also, the alt rule is relevant only for the reason that it's a recruitment page, it would be foolish of you not to mention it considering that it would restrict whether or not some people could join the group at all. That makes it relevant but, just barely so. --<small>[[User:Karek#K|Karek]]<sup><font face="Monotype Corsiva">[[User:Karek/ProjDev/OmegaMap|maps?!]]</font></sup></small> 17:37, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
:::::::If they already have a DEM member in our group then they are already aware of the 3 alt rule and as such it doesn't really apply.--[[User:Kristi of the Dead|Kristi of the Dead]] 02:59, 21 November 2008 (UTC)


I've just noticed this case. My internets are broken at the moment so it'll be a while before I can properly begin it. However, as one of the two maintainers of the Recruitment page (the other having recently left the wiki) I will accept this case. I was going to recommend a friendly arbitration case to let a third party end the discussion, but since Kristi wants to get all legalistic and leave unfriendly messages on my talkpage, I will now take this case on in my usual wiki manner. I will represent the recruitment section and will participate fully in this debate on the following two conditions:
===Zombie Lord vs [[User:Lelouch|Lelouch]]===
#The DEM is named in this case in place of Kristi and we understand that the ruling will apply to all members of the DEM, all subgroups of the DEM and their members.
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>
#Arbitrator selection is put on hold until my interwebs are all fixed. -- {{User:Iscariot/Signature}} 10:48, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
:hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
:Pffft.  You've been little but hostile since the moment this discussion began months ago.  And your paragraph #1 is rather a transparent attempt to use the interrelation of some DEM groups -- which by Kristi's petition are not even subject to this case -- to make a case for disallowing what she ''is'' asking for.  <s>If your internet access is a problem, perhaps Whitehouse should represent Recruitment in a truly "friendly arbitration case".</s> -- {{User:Atticus Rex/Sig}} 17:01, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha<br />hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahah
::EDIT: Great.  Whitehouse [[User:Whitehouse|really is gone]]. -- {{User:Atticus Rex/Sig}} 17:05, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
ahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha<br />hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
:::Wow surprise surprise Iscariot is out to do nothing yet again. How about while we're at it we vote this useless guy off the recruitment page entirely. You don't make the terms of the case Iscariot. In fact if you don't get off your ass we'll move on without you. I mean I've done nothing but ask you for help and in return I've gotten no response.  I much prefer whitehouse to you as he actually does his job.  If your internets is so spotty perhaps you should go back to being a normal user. In regards to you number 1 above This ruling should apply to the entire recruitment page not just to one ORGANIZATION and its member groups(ie not just the DEM).  If it applies to the DEM then it should for fairness sake apply to all organizations such as the DA and others.  That's the point no more of this "lets treat the DEM like crap because we can" stuff.--[[User:Kristi of the Dead|Kristi of the Dead]] 02:56, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha<br />hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahah
::::As it says above, Whitehouse has left the wiki. Any other people who would want to represent Recruitment in this case that you know of, Krisit? {{User:Linkthewindow/Sig}} 00:13, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
ahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha<br />hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahah
:::::The reason I request that the DEM be named is for the same reason the Recruitment page is named, we do not want to be going through this process for every member of your group. Provided you agree to this, I will accept [[User:The Hierophant|The Hierophant]], [[User:Wan Yao|Wan Yao]] or [[User:Suicidalangel|Suicidalangel]] as they are familiar with large groups and I consider them to be impartial. -- {{User:Iscariot/Signature}} 13:02, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
ahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha--{{User:OrangeGaf/Sig}} 19:59, 1 January 2010 (UTC)<br />
::::::The Hierophant(Lord Moloch) is a lot of things, in this case impartial isn't one of them.--<small>[[User:Karek#K|Karek]]<sup><font face="Monotype Corsiva">[[User:Karek/ProjDev/OmegaMap|maps?!]]</font></sup></small> 13:05, 8 December 2008 (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. --[[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)
I am willing to be the arbitatortot and/or person in charge of wishing death upon Iscariot. Seriously, fuck off and die. If I ever met your mother I'd punch her in the ovaries until they turned into dust so that she could never poison the world again with a failspawn such as yourself. You're an idiot and a failure at a human being. Do everyone around you a favor and choke to death. --[[User:Saromu|Sonny Corleone]] <sup>[[DORIS]] [[MSD]]  [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=91a8pHj7V9k pr0n]</sup> 17:42, 20 November 2008 (UTC)
{{arbiesfight}}-- {{User:DanceDanceRevolution/sig4}} 01:10, 24 February 2011 (UTC)


Meh. I'll arbitrate. I hardly ever touch the recruitment page and have nothing against both users (or pages/groups.) However, both users should be advised that this would be my first case, so yeah... {{User:Linkthewindow/Sig}} 00:13, 22 November 2008 (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.{{User:Zombie Lord/sig2}} <tt>07:42 1 January 2010(UTC)</tt>




This case piqued my curiosity. I sneak on over to the recruitment page every now and again, and would neutrally apply logic and reason to the users involved in this case. As Linkthewindow, both Iscariot and Kristi should be advised that this would be my first arbitration. {{Ottari/Sig}} 06:34, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
<big> <center>'''Please Don't feed the Troll'''!!!<br>
It will only encourage it, and then you'll be sorry!<br>
Just ignore them, and it. ''will'' go away. Eventually.</center></big>


It looked like discussion died off here a while ago. Speak now or I shall archive it :P. {{User:Linkthewindow/Sig}} 11:43, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
:Discussion has not died, the case was merely dormant whilst my interwebs were dead. They have now been resurrected and the case can continue. -- {{User:Iscariot/Signature}} 13:02, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
::Thats fine. I'll inform Kristi. {{User:Linkthewindow/Sig}} 06:41, 9 December 2008 (UTC)


Feh, this old bullshit subject... God, when will the BS crowd give their inane politicking a rest??? Well... anyway... Just because groups share a forum doesn't make them all the same group. However, when groups are all surbordinate to one leader and/or executive "board of directors"... well... For example, unlike the DEM, there is no "president" of all Beerhah: it's just a board which includes several completely independent subgroups. There is no "president" of Barhah.com, either, just a dude who runs the board. Sorta. So those comparisons are totally invalid. However, the Dulston Alliance is a pretty tightly knit organisation as far as I can tell... so that comparison is more valid. But, of course... you know... someone has to claim the DEM are fascists... and someone else has to play the foil and claim they're ''persecuted''... GET THEE TO AN ARBITRATION CASE! '''***YAWN****''' --[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 11:26, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
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)
:Actually, me being... well... me.... put that aside for a moment ;) ... I never bother with the recruitment page... Has there actually been an edit war over this? If not, there is no cause for an Arby case. Just add AH and MCDU to the list as seperate groups. Then, and only then -- if there's an edit war over the issue -- should this come to Arbies. Otherwise, you're wasting our time. That's my two bits worth. --[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 11:38, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
::The answer seems more straight forward. The recruitment section is meant to work with the Stats.html page, the rule should be if you show up there you can show up here.--<small>[[User:Karek#K|Karek]]<sup><font face="Monotype Corsiva">[[User:Karek/ProjDev/OmegaMap|maps?!]]</font></sup></small> 19:28, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
::My understanding is that they are going to arbies over a long-standing dispute about this issue and to ''prevent'' an edit war. {{User:Linkthewindow/Sig}} 08:08, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
:::zerg army anyone?--{{User:J3D/ciggy}} 01:01, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
::::Sorry, karek, but I can't see any direct connection between the stats page and the recruitment page. Maybe that's because there isn't any! The stats page links you the actual ''group page''. It has nothing whatsoever to do with the Recruitment page. However, when I click on MPD and MFD, I see two pages both of which say in a very prominent place: "Branch of the DEM". Make what you want of that... --[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 01:42, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
:::::That's just foolish, of course there is a connection, the game recognizes them as seprate notable groups and presents them to the players as such. Stats.html is an automated recruitment tool built before the Recruitment addition and it originally served that purpose. It's the ''original'' recruitment page.--<small>[[User:Karek#K|Karek]]<sup><font face="Monotype Corsiva">[[User:Karek/ProjDev/OmegaMap|maps?!]]</font></sup></small> 02:47, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
::::::That may possibly have been true then. This, however, is now. There is no connection between the recruitment page and the stats page. As for the "Branch of the DEM" blurb on the wikis, etc., I'm merely presenting a fact. What you do with that fact -- including ignore it as unimportant and irrelevant -- is your decision. --[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 07:29, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
::::::::::There was been a LONG discussion over at Brainstock a while back about revamping some of the terminology, to make it clearer that the DEM groups see themselves as independent entities, and part of an alliance. Due to the wiki averseness of most of the DEM members, their pages ARE rather outdated, and haven't been updated in a while.  Heck, I'd tweak their pages for them, if they'd let me, but I dunno how well that would go over. ;) --[[User:Jen|Jen]] 15:14, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
:The army, navy and airforce are all seperate branches of a nations armed forces (arguably so is the police!) but each recruits seperatly for very good reasons. I think Karek has hit upon a very simple and clear solution so why not run with it? That is a genuine question by the way so please feel free to answer it...--[[User:Honestmistake|Honestmistake]] 09:37, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
::#Create 10 dummy characters.
::#Login once a week with them.
::#???
::#<s>Profit</s> Recruit!
::--[[User:Midianian|Midianian]]&nbsp;<small><sup><span style="background-color:black;color:yellow">'''Big&nbsp;Brother&nbsp;Diary&nbsp;Room:&nbsp;[511,12]'''</span></sup></small> 11:27, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
:::And that is different from the current situation how? Any idiot can already create dummy accounts and a group... hell if no-one checks the stats for group size you can skip the dummy account part and just go straight for the recruiting. The main problem i can see is that if a group is too small to appear on stats it will be barred from recruiting!--[[User:Honestmistake|Honestmistake]] 16:31, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
::::So, what on earth would implementing that limit solve? <small>Other than cutting down the number of ads by ~30%...</small> --[[User:Midianian|Midianian]]&nbsp;<small><sup><span style="background-color:black;color:yellow">'''Big&nbsp;Brother&nbsp;Diary&nbsp;Room:&nbsp;[517,12]'''</span></sup></small> 17:36, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
:::::It settles this ridiculous argument of what is and isn't a group by letting the game engine itself decide which ones are.--<small>[[User:Karek#K|Karek]]<sup><font face="Monotype Corsiva">[[User:Karek/ProjDev/OmegaMap|maps?!]]</font></sup></small> 02:45, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
::::::Even if it wasn't ridiculously easy to get past that limitation if you're willing to cheat, it still wouldn't be worth '''banning''' small groups off the page. These are the groups that need Recruitment the most. Oh, and that 30% wasn't a guess. Out of the 35 groups currently recruiting in Malton (or at least when I checked them yesterday), 11 wouldn't be able to do it anymore. --[[User:Midianian|Midianian]]&nbsp;<small><sup><span style="background-color:black;color:yellow">'''Big&nbsp;Brother&nbsp;Diary&nbsp;Room:&nbsp;[511,13]'''</span></sup></small> 11:27, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
:::::::It's really not our place to proclaim who is cheating and who isn't, that belongs in the realm of forums and groups not the wiki which has to be applied equally to everyone. If someone is zerging to make a group it's not our place to declaim zerging as illegitimate on the wiki, regardless of our personal views on the matter ''we have to be fair first''. I'm not saying ban small groups from the page so much as that we shouldn't ban groups the game recognizes as groups from recruiting, for small groups it wouldn't change the status quo.--<small>[[User:Karek#K|Karek]]<sup><font face="Monotype Corsiva">[[User:Karek/ProjDev/OmegaMap|maps?!]]</font></sup></small>
::::::::So, what you're aiming at is that a group can recruit if they use their own group tags in their profiles? Why not just say it like ''that'' and leave the stats page out of this? --[[User:Midianian|Midianian]]&nbsp;<small><sup><span style="background-color:black;color:yellow">'''Big&nbsp;Brother&nbsp;Diary&nbsp;Room:&nbsp;[500,14]'''</span></sup></small> 00:41, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
:::::::::The issue is that DEM "subgroups" that are on the stats page aren't being allowed to have recruitment ads because of a rule added specifically to prevent them from having them. Them being on the stats page lends itself to my point, that the group recognizes them as differing individual groups and as such the wiki shouldn't treat them differently than the game does because they happen to share a similar goal. It's much equivalent to if we banned all members of [[Zombiefied Republic of !zanbah|!zanbah]] or [[Big Bash|The Big Bash]]es from having an ad while those things were active, at least from the standpoint of how the wiki treats them it is.--<small>[[User:Karek#K|Karek]]<sup><font face="Monotype Corsiva">[[User:Karek/ProjDev/OmegaMap|maps?!]]</font></sup></small> 03:43, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
::::::::::I don't need a recap, I ''do'' follow things on the wiki.
::::::::::Requiring them to be on the stats page is still only a round-about way of requiring that they have their own group tags in their profiles. Yes, being on the stats page could be one way to prove that, but it shouldn't be the only one (you know, like directly providing some profiles?), and thus it shouldn't be the ''actual rule''. --[[User:Midianian|Midianian]]&nbsp;<small><sup><span style="background-color:black;color:yellow">'''Big&nbsp;Brother&nbsp;Diary&nbsp;Room:&nbsp;[511,14]'''</span></sup></small> 11:54, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
:::::::::::Karek 'recapping' things is all well and good, but he's recapping the wrong thing. That's not the reason this has come to arbitration at all. You think he'd know that since he's trying to hijack the case. If he continues to go over ground that's already been covered without doing his research then I'm going to take everything from this page not from the participants (of which he is not currently one) and the volunteer arbitrators and stick this rubbish on the talk page. -- {{User:Iscariot/Signature}} 14:03, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
:::::::::::::Requiring a group to be on the stats page to be able to recruit is a completely fucking retarded -- and utterly biased and discriminatory  -- idea. Basically you're killing any new group's chance to recruit and develop outside the big, independent metagame forums... Which, even the bigger ones, are mostly closed cliques, anyeay. Wow, what a great idea!! --[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 06:48, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
::::::::::::::[[User_talk:Midianian#Arbies|Fail]].--<small>[[User:Karek#K|Karek]]<sup><font face="Monotype Corsiva">[[User:Karek/ProjDev/OmegaMap|maps?!]]</font></sup></small> 10:25, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::Now who's being "argumentative" for it's own sake, hmmmmmn? I don't read everyone's talk pages: I read what's posted here. **yawn** --[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 06:46, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
::::::::::::::::And thus why I linked it, or is not repeating myself frequently being argumentative too?--<small>[[User:Karek#K|Karek]]<sup><font face="Monotype Corsiva">[[User:Karek/ProjDev/OmegaMap|maps?!]]</font></sup></small> 06:53, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
You see, if any other user engaged in this kind of trolling argument on an open arbitration case they'd be warned and told to take it to the talk page to stop shitting up the admin pages. Does anyone think that'll happen to Karek? Does anyone think he should know better? -- {{User:Iscariot/Signature}} 11:32, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
:I'm trying to sort out a solution that makes sense as opposed to helping some vendetta you two have between each other. This isn't an arbitration case at this point and regardless it will not be solved here so I'm discussing a way to sort it out. You want me to be a third party, fine, I'll join the arbitration case on Kirsti's side if she'll have me simply because you don't seem to want to solve anything, you just want to enforce a rule that makes little sense and isn't being applied equally to every group.--<small>[[User:Karek#K|Karek]]<sup><font face="Monotype Corsiva">[[User:Karek/ProjDev/OmegaMap|maps?!]]</font></sup></small> 22:13, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
::No. You've just explained, in your own words, that you're trying to arbitrate this case ("I'm trying to sort out a solution"). But you have not been accepted as an arbitrator, so butt out, karek. Actually, you can do this, and damn it I ''encourage'' you to try to negotiate a solution! But that belongs on Talk pages, not on admin pages. I have no axes to grind with either of you: I'm calling this as I see it... And, karek, if you keep shitting up this admin page by tryimg to be an unappointed abritrator, I'll be consulting whether your actions are vandalism. And Iscariot... quit being trollish.  --[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 06:56, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
:::You're just being argumentative now. I'm not arbitrating, I'm trying to do something that should have been done before the case got to arbitration. In the process I'm also arguing for what I believe would be the best solution here and expressing my views on the case, which has led to me taking a side. Trying to settle a dispute isn't arbitration, it's mediation, arbitrators on UDWiki don't seem to know how to do that and you don't seem to know the difference between an interested party who happens to want to actually use the arbitration system ''as it is meant to be used'' as an intrested party ''in the manner they are meant to use it'', I have no intention of trying to inforce some draconian ruling in this case, although technically I do/did have the means to try if I actually wished to start undoing the good precedents we/I've set regarding this page's treatment. The difference between arbitrating and starting/moving the discussion are night and day. --<small>[[User:Karek#K|Karek]]<sup><font face="Monotype Corsiva">[[User:Karek/ProjDev/OmegaMap|maps?!]]</font></sup></small> 10:38, 18 December 2008 (UTC)
::::No, I'm not merely being "argumentative", karek. You've missed my point. Which was that this discussion ought to be taking place on user and Recruitment talk pages. As it is, Iscariot actually has a point that your actions border  on interfering in a non-neutral manner an abritration case which you're not a part of. It's not what you're doing -- which is laubible -- but how and where you're doing it -- which doesn't come across. to some, as "benevolently" as you might hope. Dig? --[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 06:39, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
:::::That has long since ceased to be a concern of mine on this wiki, people will interpret things how their bias lets them. At this point you're only point is some trumped up claim of my arbitrating as an attempt to invalidate my participation without actually invalidating my points, it doesn't matter that the person who filed this case views what I added as an ideal result to solve the problem that led to this case on their part, and it doesn't matter that the best one to argue for something that came from my head is me. So yes, you're being argumentative and are ill informed, the discussion came here because it was blocked from going anywhere on the user and recruitment pages.--<small>[[User:Karek#K|Karek]]<sup><font face="Monotype Corsiva">[[User:Karek/ProjDev/OmegaMap|maps?!]]</font></sup></small> 06:49, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
::::::It's simple, karek: what part of "take it to talk pages" don't you understand? And, as for all the name calling  etc. you're engaging in... I'll leave it to others to read the thread and decide for themselves who's being "agrumentative", presumptuous and thoroughly condescending here... You just said that you don't care what others think of you. ''Exactly.'' **yawn** --[[User:WanYao|WanYao]] 07:03, 19 December 2008 (UTC)


Where is Kirsti anyway? We can't have an arbiration case without someone accusing. {{User:Linkthewindow/Sig}} 11:39, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
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)
:I was absent from this case for a period of time due to connection difficulties, I am more than willing to give my opponent the same grace that was given to me in order to resolve this matter. -- {{User:Iscariot/Signature}} 12:01, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
{{arbiesfight}}-- {{User:DanceDanceRevolution/sig4}} 01:10, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
::Point taken. Anyone know of an alternate way to contact her. It appears she has been in a wiki-coma, but she might still be active on Brainstock. {{User:Linkthewindow/Sig}} 20:33, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
:::She's quite active on Brainstock. And I don't blame her for going into a wiki coma. 
:::Also, I support Karek's proposal.  If a group shows up on the stats page, they should be allowed to recruit.  (Without it implying the vice versa...if a groups DOESN'T show up, they SHOULDN'T be allowed to recruit).  Alternatively, go with "if a group has different tags in their profile from another group, and has a separate wiki page (not a sub-page), it's a separate group, and should be allowed to recruit independently."  It makes more sense than the current rule, which IS being applied differently to different alliances of groups, and which has been unfairly singling out and penalizing the DEM for a long time. (The [[SWA]], [[DA]], and [[NMC]] have all been allowed to recruit separately, though they are part of larger alliances.  The [[DHPD]], [[Imperium]], and [[RRF]] (all of which have been presented as groups that could start making separate advertisements, once the DEM is allowed to make separate advertisements, all have a single group tag.  And the DHPD also has subpages, not independent group pages)).--[[User:Jen|Jen]] 15:05, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
I'll do it, i'm sick of the sporadic edits to this page plaguing my watchlist.--{{User:J3D/ciggy}} 11:42, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
:srsly, gtfo my watchlist. pick someone to arbies lolbutsrs.--{{User:J3D/ciggy}} 04:45, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
::It looks like we are waiting for Kristi to return from her wikicoma. {{User:Linkthewindow/Sig}} 04:49, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
::Seriously Iscariot spends paragraphs dogging Karek for making constructive suggestions that might actually help but J3D gets call us a zerg army above and then continues to spam the *gasp* admin pages and not a peep.  seriously nobody cares about your watchlist--[[User:Kristi of the Dead|Kristi of the Dead]] 06:29, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
:::Bitter, bitter. You totally misinterpreted me. I was saying that making a rule linking recruitment and stats page together could be easily overcome by a zerg army. --{{User:J3D/ciggy}} 06:50, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
:::I love Karek's idea! It would work beutifully. And would be fair which is something that's been lacking in the wiki recruitment pages for the DEM for some time now.  Seriously we bring a fair number of new players into the game and teach them how to play and try to make them part of the community.  Which is hard to do since from our perspective for some time now the wiki has targeted us (as far as the recruitment goes) unfairly.  What I want is a fair resolution that prevent "page maintainers" from using their own judgement as often and Karek's suggestion I think would do that.  A fair resolution here would prolly make it easier for me to get more DEM members to be more active in the community here on the wiki too.--[[User:Kristi of the Dead|Kristi of the Dead]] 06:08, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
::::Tell me Kristi, did you see the arbitrators and conditions I suggested and the reasoning for them, or was it all lost in Karek's superfluous paragraphs? -- {{User:Iscariot/Signature}} 06:48, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
:::::To recap then; You proposed LordMoloch, Wanyao, and SA. SA is [[Special:Contributions/Suicidalangel|inactive]], LordMoloch/TheHeirophant is leader of the RRF and one of the people who tends to refer to the DEM as a zerg group, and WanYao has already chosen a side above. You might want to work on a new list if you actually want to move the case along.--<small>[[User:Karek#K|Karek]]<sup><font face="Monotype Corsiva">[[User:Karek/ProjDev/OmegaMap|maps?!]]</font></sup></small> 06:56, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
::::::That would be ''half'' of what I'm talking about, again your pointless graffiti all over this page has obscured the rest even from your eyes. Somehow I'm quite sure that Kristi knows who The Hierophant is, your attempt to influence this case by disparaging one of my potential arbitrators merely reinforces your neutrality in this matter.... -- {{User:Iscariot/Signature}} 07:02, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
:::::::I wouldn't be so sure, she doesn't use the wiki much and I'm not going to give you the opportunity to use that lack against her by catchin her uninformed. You've proposed no other arbitrators on this page, you haven't even expressed an opinion on the volunteers just on how much you dislike me adding anything.--<small>[[User:Karek#K|Karek]]<sup><font face="Monotype Corsiva">[[User:Karek/ProjDev/OmegaMap|maps?!]]</font></sup></small> 07:13, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
::::::::Your lack of reading comprehension astounds me. -- {{User:Iscariot/Signature}} 07:18, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
::::::::However, in the interest of removing excuses I'll start moving all junk not immediately related to who the arbitrator will be to the talk page. Happy?--<small>[[User:Karek#K|Karek]]<sup><font face="Monotype Corsiva">[[User:Karek/ProjDev/OmegaMap|maps?!]]</font></sup></small> 07:16, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
:::::::::Certainly not, you are already aware (and have always been) that you are in error. The fact that the other sysops would never rule against one of their own does not change the fact that had anyone else pulled the shit you have on this page they'd be escalated immediately. -- {{User:Iscariot/Signature}} 07:18, 19 December 2008 (UTC)


==Hagnat v Iscariot==
==Iscariot vs Sgt Raiden==
This looks to be essentially vandalism, it's no different than spamming A/VB to try and get a user punished or adding someone else's pages to A/D,A/SD,A/P because you don't like them. Second opinions from the peanut gallery? Attempt to abuse the system or just the biggest case of idiocy from a user we've had in a long while?--<small>[[User:Karek#K|Karek]]<sup><font face="Monotype Corsiva">[[User:Karek/ProjDev/OmegaMap|maps?!]]</font></sup></small> 04:37, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
Discussion Move to [[UDWiki talk:Administration/Arbitration/Iscariot vs Sgt Raiden|archive]]
:You don't get punished for trying to get someone A/VBed if there is a hint of truth in what you are saying. And i think this is completely different to A/SDing someone elses pages, that ''is'' straight forward vandalism. This is meh, if they wanna do it that's their call. Doesn't cause anyone else any trouble.--{{User:J3D/ciggy}} 04:47, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
::This causes trouble for everyone and is barred by precedent in the past; we don't handle ridiculous cases that exceed the limitations of Arbitration. This case is opposite to everything arbitration exists for and is being made for what is obviously an attempt to garner a wikigate style ruling. That's about as bad faith as you can get without banning outright and is harassment through the wiki system, much like the examples provided.--<small>[[User:Karek#K|Karek]]<sup><font face="Monotype Corsiva">[[User:Karek/ProjDev/OmegaMap|maps?!]]</font></sup></small> 05:09, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

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"