UDWiki talk:Administration/Arbitration

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

General Discussion

Editing during a case is frankly bad form

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

SA vs Thadeous Oakley

You're going to have to choose an arbitrator. If you don't SA will be able to choose for you. --Cyberbob 17:05, 8 June 2009 (BST)

Not true --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{[talk] [wcdz]} 20:13, 8 June 2009 (BST)

Truer than you think. At the top of this page "In assisting in Arbitration, we generally suggest that both parties agree to the Arbitration. This is not, by any means, a requirement, but we do require that both parties be represented in proceedings."

Now, based upon that, we have yet another contradiction in this damn wiki. Why are they every where? And in this case, not just because it'd benefit me, we should honestly follow a forceful arbitration if it's needed. To deny it literally makes this entire system moot. Whats the point in having a system to settle shit if it doesn't work because we can all just sat no?--Mr. Angel, Help needed? 20:28, 8 June 2009 (BST)

Your quote is outdaded. I should have fixed that when i wrote the arbitration guidelines last year, my bad. The reason why arbitration does not work the way you want its because it was not built to solve personal issues like this. You are not supposed barge in here asking for a user to be forbidden to use your talk page (or any other page you own). Instead, you should use this place to find a way for you two to be able to work together in a constructive fashion. Barring both from talking to each other for a given time should be frowned upon, and only be the decision made by the arbitrator after every other means to solve the issue had failed. --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{[talk] [wcdz]} 20:37, 8 June 2009 (BST)

Your edits, along with Izzy's are not entirely valid to that page. There was no consensus by the entirety of the community to let you or others edit that page. You should not "fix" that problem based upon a rogue users edits. Arbitration is our method of dealing with disputes and being used as such. If you don't like it, tough. Write a policy instead of stealth editing shit. ;). But seriously, I'm well within my rights to ask for this.--Mr. Angel, Help needed? 20:41, 8 June 2009 (BST)

It become concensus when it was left un-edited for more than 15 monhts with a link in an administration page advising users to use said page as guideline. --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{[talk] [wcdz]} 21:11, 8 June 2009 (BST)

It didn't, because at the top of the page, the page we use more as a guideline and rule book for arbies, it still said others can and will be forced into arbies if the need arises.--Mr. Angel, Help needed? 21:14, 8 June 2009 (BST)

Precedent and common sense are against you here SA, he is entirely within his rights to refuse any arbitration if he feels there is no need for it and this has been proven may times (by Grim on at least 2 or 3 occasions for starters) In any event the resolution can only binding if you accept arbitration or it wouldn't be called arbitration... perhaps what you are looking for is a trial by peers (or combat) --Honestmistake 00:22, 9 June 2009 (BST)

And i just found a flaw on SA line of thought. Heh.

In assisting in Arbitration, we generally suggest that both parties agree to the Arbitration. This is not [..] a requirement, but we do require that both parties be represented in proceedings.

Genereally suggest and not a requirement imply that the user is free to choose if he wants to accept the arbitration or not. And the final bit simply state the user can accept arbitration, yet have someone else representing him during the proccedings. --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{[talk] [wcdz]} 00:29, 9 June 2009 (BST)

Right then. SA, how about you make it explicitly clear to Thad that if he edits in your namespace again, you'll take him to A/VB for vandalism. That's essentially what you want out of this arby, and if you make your wishes explicit and those wishes are within your rights (your namespace), and he breaks them, I could see you winning an A/VB case against Thad. No arby required, even if you can't get him to agree to one. --Bob Boberton ^{TF / DW} 00:54, 9 June 2009 (BST)

No Hag, what that line means is that if the other user doesn't agree, we'll just have someone chosen to represent them, the arbitration goes on, and the other user is screwed. Your understanding of the English language is lacking. Instead of trying to turn a system that currently is fine as it is into a system that will be rendered useless, try concentrating on the important things. Like making a system for personality conflicts, like this one, and edit disputes. I have precedence on my side (Various restraining orders place upon parties, like with Akule and the Fifth Horseman). This is a simple issue that is afforded to me by user space rights. I don't want "Well just tell him to stay away" or "Well threaten him". If I threaten him, it won't have any grounds because nothing went through fucking arbies. If I tell him to stay away, he'll still be able to post any time he wants. A simple arbitration would fix all these problems. And it doesn't help with Hagnat trying to wikilawyer (And failing, Imight add) what he wants, and then stealth changing guidelines and rules, and modifying the way we do things around here. When he's not a sysops. When there wasn't any consent. I want a simple arbitration case, and I will proceed with it whether Hag's, or Mistergame like it or not.--Mr. Angel, Help needed? 01:11, 9 June 2009 (BST)

Wow. You sound like Iscariot now. Not only you are putting your hand over your ears and yelling 'lalalalayouarewronglalalaimarightlalala', but you are also accusing me of stealth editing guidelines... which my recent move simply made it EASIER to pinpoint any changes made to the guidelines. What next, you accusing me of abusing my trusted powers for my own agenda ? oh, wait, i dont have them anymore... you do, and you just used to protect the abirtation guidelines pages (pages i created and edited) to fit *YOUR* agenda... hum. --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{[talk] [wcdz]} 01:26, 9 June 2009 (BST)

And btw, the arbitration system is *NOT* working fine. It never did. Specially with people using it to solve their own personal disputes in juvenile fashion like you are doing now. --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{[talk] [wcdz]} 01:29, 9 June 2009 (BST)

Considering in your "move" of the page guidelines into a template, you removed a part that has been there since god knows how long? Yeah. I consider that stealth editing hagnat. Especially considering there was no god damned discussion about wanting Iscariot's edit. Yes, I protected them, because yet again you're throwing the god damned rule book out the window, because you like doing things your way and god help you if some pesky red tape gets in the way amirite? Hagnat, please refrain from editing this case, as you have not offered to arbitrate, and are doing nothing but shitting my case up with your incorrect bullshit. And I also reject you as arbitrator if you think about offering to be a douche. :) --Mr. Angel, Help needed? 01:33, 9 June 2009 (BST)

Since the arbitraion guidelines i wrote in january apparently has no weight since it never passed through community discussion, there is nothing forbidding me from editing your arbie case, SA. And you call it incorrect bulsshit, but honestmistake comment above seems to agree with me, and so does several users in other cases (which were not archived because they were not accepted, oh bummer) --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{[talk] [wcdz]} 01:48, 9 June 2009 (BST)

Sorry Hagnat but trying to guilt-trip SA into allowing your edits to go through is not going to work when those edits were made without any sort of discussion. I'm actually glad you aren't a sysop anymore because your level of self-entitlement is terrifying. You don't get to unilaterally make those kinds of judgement calls - you got misconducted for it a shitload of times and now you're leaving yourself open to vandalism cases. --Cyberbob 01:35, 9 June 2009 (BST)

so speaks the troll who thinks its people enough to get his sysop powers.... fyi, I could only get misconducted if i abused any sysop powers. Since all these edits were made with me as a user, i find it highly doubtful that it could be seen as misconduct in any way. --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{[talk] [wcdz]} 01:48, 9 June 2009 (BST)

I was talking about your tendency to make unilateral judgement calls in general rather than illegally editing arbitration guidelines in particular. Please take the time to read what I say properly. --Cyberbob 01:51, 9 June 2009 (BST)

Iscariot vs Sgt Raiden

Discussion Move to archive