UDWiki:Administration/Arbitration

Shortcut:
A/A

While the wiki community attempts to work on the basis of encouragement and cooperation, there are occasions where wiki users find themselves unable to reach accord. In the event of this happening, the Arbitration Team may be called upon to intervene, and attempt to find a reasonable compromise that, while perhaps not satisfying both parties, may at least assist in defusing the situation, thanks to the unbiased third party.

Guidelines for Arbitration Requests

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.

Any Arbitration request should provide at least the following:

• The aggrieved parties. Either person vs person, or [list of people] vs [list of people].
• The reason for the arbitration. This should very specifically be without reference to people, as that information has already been provided. It should be a short paragraph indicating the causes of the aggrievement, and why both parties feel it requires arbitration
• Any pages affected by the aggrievement. This should be a simple list of links.

Once the Arbitration commences, the Arbitrator will request statements from all parties involved. Any evidence to back up one's statement should be provided in link form. Each party will then have an opportunity to rebut their opponent's statement. After these two steps, the Arbitrator will then consider the case, and reach a conclusion, and determine the outcome that is required. It's the duty of the Arbitrator to move a case he accepted to a subpage of UDWiki:Administration/Arbitration, and to update the status of the arbitration case in the Arbitration Cases in Progress section.

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.

After the Arbitration is over, it will then be moved to an archive page. As publicly accessible pages, they may be used to establish precedent in further, applicable cases.

Current Arbitrators

For guidelines on how to arbitrate, see Arbitration Guidelines.

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 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}}

Also note that not all listed Arbitrators are active on the Wiki.

Available Arbitrators in Alphabetical Order
Acoustic Pie Airborne88 Akule AnimeSucks Atticus Rex Axe Hack Blood Panther boxy Cheeseman Conndraka Cyberbob240 DanceDanceRevolution DevilAsh Dragon fang	Drawde Funt Solo Gus Thomas Galaxy125 hagnat Haliman111 Headless Gunner Honestmistake Iscariot Jed Jedaz JaredV Karek Kikashie	Labine50 MichaelRead Nubis Ottari Pdeq Rosslessness Seventythree Sonny Corleone Suicidal Angel The General Toejam Xan Krieger Z. slay3r

Administration Notice

Use this header to create new arbitration cases. Once all sides have chosen an arbiter, move the case to a sub-page of UDWiki:Administration/Arbitration and update its status in the Arbitration Cases in Progress section.

Arbitration Cases Currently Under Consideration

Iggles vs. MartyBanks

Posting non-NPOV in the Dunell Hills page Dunell_Hills#A_Brief_History_of_Dunell_Hills_After_the_Outbreak -- —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Iggles (talk • contribs) 12:45, November 11, 2008.

Sign next time. And wouldn't "non-NPOV" just be POV? Anyway. I'll be the Arbitatortot if you both agree. --Sonny Corleone ^{DORIS MSD pr0n} 19:46, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

I'll volunteer as well. -- Atticus Rex ^{mfu pif} Δ 20:12, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Conndraka vs. St. Iscariot

Enough is enough. Not only is he filling up misconduct cases with drivel, his talk page specifically threatens misconduct against any member of the sysop team who contacts him, which btw is against standards as it was determined a LONG time ago that participants on the wiki must have a venue where they are able to be reached by others (iirc it was somewhere in the debates about the signature policy but can't take the time to go a looking right now.) He's entitled to his opinions but all this making mountains out of mole-hill crap is getting ridiculous. Ever since his buddy Grim got banned he's been on the war wagon and has a particular distaste for those of us who "persecuted" the all wonderful Grim.

To be honest I don' know what I seek out of this but the juris-my-dick-shun crap has got to stop, and all members of the wiki need to have the ability to contact the others. Deleted if you want after the fact, but threatening misconduct for saying hi, bye, or GTFO? thats Bullshit.

Oh and to make a point... As this affects the rights and responsibilities inherent in being a sysop, I will only accept current or former members of the sysop team as an arbitrator. Conndraka^{mod TAZM CFT} 11:50, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

I acknowledge this case and will represent myself. I await volunteer arbitrators. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 11:57, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Oooooooooooooooooo!! Pick me!! I like talking about stuff. =) -- Cheese 21:58, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Your handle of choice is a form of moldy milk, accordingly I reject you as arbitrator. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 09:47, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Er..does it really matter if he threatens misconduct for contacting him? It's not like that'd EVER get misconduct, apart from the fact that nothing gets misconduct anymore, that's just, well, not misconduct. (sorry for all the commas) --xoxo 23:34, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

J3D is right. In the case Iscariot doesn't accept a sysop, I will arbitrate as I have nothing against both parties. D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 00:57, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

I reject you as arbitraitor. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 09:46, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

You do realise you already gave the game away as to how you'd rule? People don't like arbitrators who go into cases with their minds already made up, you know. --HAHAHA DISREGARD THAT, I SUCK COCKS 01:34, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Why are you on list of arbitrators then? And my mind isn't made up. I happen to know Iscariot is very good in arbitration cases. And I was merely pointing out that in practice the ploy would not have effect. I didn't say I would rule against it. D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 02:12, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Was that supposed to be a burn? When it comes to arbitrating I'll have you know I am more than capable of being impartial. --HAHAHA DISREGARD THAT, I SUCK COCKS 02:37, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

You continue to argue as if I give a damn. Sorry cf =[ D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 08:22, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

You continue to try and bail on arguments you get dominated in using the same tired old "I don't care" line. Sorry ddd =[ --HAHAHA DISREGARD THAT, I SUCK COCKS 08:39, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Lol whats ddd? My favourite acronym beginning with DD is DDS or dumb drunk slut. It spawned from the dumbdrunksluts website (college girls suck and fuck for your entertainment etc) and has only grown in popularity since then.--xoxo 08:55, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

"Dee dee dee" is a phrase often used by Carlos Mencia to describe retards. --HAHAHA DISREGARD THAT, I SUCK COCKS 09:55, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

If there is an offer to arby somewhere in there Bob,I'll consider it. Conndraka^{mod TAZM CFT} 17:58, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

I'd be happy to do it but I don't think Iscariot is going to accept me. --HAHAHA DISREGARD THAT, I SUCK COCKS 23:53, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

CF, you do understand that taking you seriously in an argument is the only way someone would lose. Since when was this an argument? since when was I getting dominated? It surprises me that you of all people take such things too seriously =] D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 01:44, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm talking from the viewpoint of a third party. --HAHAHA DISREGARD THAT, I SUCK COCKS 01:47, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

You forgot the little =] or =[ or even =P face at the end of that post.--xoxo 10:38, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

I'll be arbitatortot. I just want to go to Arby's so badly. Their 5 for $5 deal is amazing. --Sonny Corleone ^{DORIS MSD pr0n} 01:08, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

No special offers for you, I reject you as arbitrator. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 09:46, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Die in a fire. --Sonny Corleone ^{DORIS MSD pr0n} 19:00, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

I can has arby's? --Haliman - Talk 02:28, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Noez, you can notz has arbys. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 09:46, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Is anyone spotting a pattern emerging here? I had considered taking this case on and winning it, however with the current A/VB case being ruled against me, even though Gnome outright admitted he had not struck the vote in the correct manner, I see no reason to give our sysops yet more statutes to ignore and twist in order to tarnish my record. Until the A/VB travesty is rectified by another sysop I will maintain my position here. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 09:46, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

So you're not going to accept an arbitrator? It seems a bit churlish to say you'll represent yourself and not accept any. At least pick from the list a group who you would accept.--Drawde ^{Talk To Me! DORIS Яed Яum Defend Ridleybonk! I know Nothing!} 16:53, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

It may seem that way, but it's the only way to prevent oneself being screwed over by the system. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 20:18, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Tough.. I brought the case and it will be arbitrated...wether you accept one or not. Read the policy... Now as far as Cheese...Sorry It would be inappropriate since you have a case against one of the parties already. Sonny...hmmm its possible...were you ever a sysop? I cant remember. It says at the top of this case that I will only accept a current or former member of the sysop team. Conndraka^{mod TAZM CFT} 17:46, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

nevermind in that regard...seems wording was changed from the policy I was used to using...let me put it this way. Ive brought a case, and only someone with sysop experience will arby it. If you don't like that, feel free to not participate. The largest part of this case is because of Iscariots unwillingness to play well with others... If he insists on being the drama whore, he should go play with himself and leave the vast majority of the community alone. Drumming up crap simply because things arn't going your way (or how you think they should go) smells of grimness to the extreme. Conndraka^{mod TAZM CFT} 17:55, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Did you just try and quote policy at me? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! That just made my day.

You see, over on A/M you enjoy throwing your weight around as a sysop and having final say. Down here you have this thing called equality. Your sysop status means precisely fuck and all. This is a wonderful world of policy, guidelines and precedent. Down here, I'm God.

You can choose not to accept any non-sysop, that's your choice, but you cannot force me to accept one either. You cannot force me to accept any arbitrator, that's kind of the point of arbies there kiddo. If one side could just demand on the arbitrator for a case, can you imagine what kind of mayhem could be caused? Can you imagine the kind of person that would jump on that precedent for shits and giggles? I could....

Your impotent rage amuses me, do go on. Sentences like "I brought the case and it will be arbitrated on" bring me much mirth. Since you keep erroneously referring to Grim and I as friends I invite you to check the edit history between us, we weren't on each other's Hanukkah card list. And because it amuses my sense of irony, welcome to precedent, starring Grim.

Hugs and kisses -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 20:18, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Policy clearly just says he has to be represented. It doesn't say it has to be him representing himself. I would think in a case where the issue is a user's blatant creation of a hostile environment it would be assumed that he wouldn't cooperate. --– Nubis ^NWO 18:39, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

You know full well you cannot force a user to be represented by another unless they refuse to participate. I am participating and am representing myself. However I do not believe myself and my opponent will agree to an arbitrator. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 20:18, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Unless you list possible arbitrators you will accept you are clearly refusing to participate. It's that simple. If you were willing to work this out you would be offering names in an effort to start the case. Since you have not even suggested one person you are not participating. --– Nubis ^NWO 02:36, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

I know nothing of the kind. Tell me where there is a policy that says that Arbitration CANT be used in such a manner, And before you go and throw the whole misconduct bit up...I mean by any user. Although sysops do have that whole interpretations clause...hmmmm Conndraka^{mod TAZM CFT} 22:25, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Go right ahead and use that interpretation clause, firstly it doesn't apply here, secondly, go ahead, make this a misconduct case. I await the community to start viewing you as Grim Mark II. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 22:29, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

I'd accept Nubis as an arbitrator. Obviously Iscariot's own statement above indicates an inability to work with any member of the sysop team and I beleive his behavior is a significant detractor to the community at large. As we don't HAVE to agree on an arbitrator unless they aren't listed on the above list. Check your periods, colons and semi-colons at the door. Conndraka^{mod TAZM CFT} 22:21, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Where did you get this made-up rule from? Pulling stuff out your ass again? All arbitrator candidates have to be accepted by both parties unless one party refuses to participate in the process. I am participating by representing myself. I do however disagree with your choices of arbitrator. Feel free to follow the link I gave you to this thing we like to call precedent, you must have heard of it. Also your choices are intrisically biased as they are de facto involved being subject to my talk page restrictions as you yourself pointed out in your opening blurb. Your insistence on a biased arbitrator shows your bad faith towards this process.

Also, I reject Nubis as arbitrator. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 22:27, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Bad faith? No more so than you refusing to allow members of the sysop team to arbitrate this case OR ANY OTHER CASE you are involved in. And no...as a Government Teacher I get to read law and precedent all the time...means jack in reality as each individual case may be used to supersede previous precedent unless you are in an apellette court or a states judicial review court. (and btw its spelled intrinsically) And I'm telling you no where in the above policy does it state you HAVE to be involved if you are failing to participate by agreeing to an arbiter (oh and since I brought the case the onus falls on you.) Conndraka^{mod TAZM CFT} 22:37, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

I am allowed to reject any arbitrator for any reason I like. Precedent allows me this action whilst still representing myself and participating in that manner. Which policy do you refer? You'd best not be confusing guidelines and policy, because that would just make you look stupid. Now I understand this may be an unfamiliar concept to you, but here we work on precedent that is formed via community consensus. The community, you remember us right? We're the one's whose trust you're supposed to hold. I'm quoting directly from this consensus and precedent, you are quoting from....well nothing actually.

You're a Government Teacher? If you taught the current US Administration you should be ashamed.

I would get into this with you, but I'm going to bed. I shall continue to review the volunteer arbitrators as they appear. Feel free to continue digging your hole. Also, nowhere is one word in the context you're using it. Hope you aren't teaching grammar. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 23:01, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Does this help? --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 22:50, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Not when this supersedes it. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 23:01, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't see how that supersedes anything when the reason it didn't continue had nothing to do with Grim's refusal of all arbitrators. Read Jedaz's comment at the bottom. --HAHAHA DISREGARD THAT, I SUCK COCKS 23:57, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, Iscariot is grasping at straws. He didn't respond to the fact that precedent can be over turned at any new case and I beleive this case should be used to set a new precedent as well as one where users arn't allowed to circumvent the arby process like Iscariot is atempting to. as a side note...I don't see any community support for you Iscariot, just a loner yelling into the wind so you can hear yourself talk. Its my theory the reason why you arn't running for sysop is that you know you couldn't get enough non-meatpuppet vouches to progress past the first stage, much less get approved rather than your lovely excuses you mentioned prior. Plain and simple you wont accept anyone because of your fear and knowlege that you are a twisted little internet troll that thrives on shouting "community" while doing very little constructive. Conndraka^{mod TAZM CFT} 01:57, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm not the one grasping at straws, you've tried every single way of trying to force through this case on your terms and all have failed. You are the one trying to drive this through with a biased and involved party as arbitrator as you know that anyone impartial to this would rule against you. Changing precedent unilaterally on your own say so is meaningless, as I'll just change it back, your analogy is flawed as in legal precedent an impartial judge sets the precedent, you are an involved party, you don't want a fair attempt at conflict resolution, you want a show trial. You can feel free to make it policy, you know where to go, feel free to see if your kangaroo court policy will be passed by the community and re-bring this case against me. I'll point out that if you think the community would ever pass such a travesty that you're probably off your medication.

Your points about sysop candidacy are most revealing and frankly disturbing. First of all, as has been proven, community support means little if you aren't chummy with the bureaucrats. Secondly you seem to be equating sysop status with some sort of exalted position that everyone should aspire to, it's not. It is a responsibility to the community, not a badge or symbol of greater worth. If you are viewing it in this manner perhaps you should reconsider you reasoning for maintaining your status as a sysop.

I'm doing little constructive am I? I tell you what, we'll compare contributions over the last 30 days and see who's done more general maintenance shall we? I believe it would be quite eye-opening for the community.

Finally, the correct spelling you are looking for is "aren't", it being the contraction of "are not", I hope you aren't teaching English to those governments. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 10:25, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

As has been established now many years ago on this wiki, my spelling is atrocious comes from having a learning disability which I have struggled to overcome most of my life. I accept that. Unfortunately its quite obvious that being an ass is a disability for you. Dreadfully apparent is the fact that you are failing in what ever manner you are dealing with that. Second as far as constructive... Yea you are right... 1 vandal case and numerous arbitrations some of which were jokes but still... Third... Again I don't see community here.. Just you. ergo I give you the opportunity to list ANY arbitrator from the above list that you will accept. Conndraka^{mod TAZM CFT} 13:02, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

It's way too late, i have an exam in 9 hours and i've consumed too much caffeine but i'll volunteer to arby this. At first i wasn't interested but it's blown up quite spectacularly. Anyway i thought i'd put my hand up.--xoxo 13:11, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Offers. --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 18:41, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Question

and to take it a step Further: Question to the community Is Iscariot participating in good faith in the arbitration process.

1. NOConndraka^{mod TAZM CFT} 13:02, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
2. No and neither are you! Frankly I do not blame him. You say yourself that you do not know what you want done to him and then you expect him to accept an arbitrator from a very small list of people whom he feels will be biased against him. Most importantly though you are trying to force him to accept arbitration knowing full well that an arbitration ruling without his consent to be involved is meaningless because he has not accepted its authority. Arbitration is supposed to be a place to work out disagreement not where you go to get sanctions/punishments dished out. Iscariot can arbitrarily bar you from his talk page if he wants but it will have fuck all force unless it is the result of a mutually accepted Arby case or a Mod enforced rule. If he takes you to Misconduct for ignoring his ban then he will get laughed at end of story.... Yes he is being irritating but that is (unfortunately) not against the rules. You want to stop him rules lawyering misconduct cases then stop cutting corners!--Honestmistake 16:51, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

   notice I changed my stance and asked him to list any arbiter he would accept from the list. I'm not asking for any kind of punishment or arbitrary sanction... I simply want him to get off the crusading white horse where he is in fact NOT supported by the community he purports to represent. Its more than I could ask for that he realize that precedent has the strength of only that case and that precedent is overturned on a fairly regular basis. Conndraka^{mod TAZM CFT} 18:34, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

   I feel very torn here.... I agree that he does seem to be on some sort of misguided crusade. However, forcing (or trying to force) someone to participate in an arby case against their will is counter-productive. If they give in and are unhappy with the result it can only harm the process... if they refuse and a ruling is made that has no real force to bind them it makes the process pointless and a laughing stock. I simply don't think any case in which both parties are not willing to accept a ruling should be pursued here as it will settle nothing!--Honestmistake 00:14, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

   The simplest solution would be for Conndraka (and any sysops worried about this) to ignore the "warning", and if Iscariot puts any sysop up for misconduct just A/VB him for posting a clearly frivilous case. The "rules" on a users page have only ever been enforcable after arbitration (and only in cases of personality conflicts). - Jedaz - 00:27/31/10/2008

   ^This. With the exception that trolling his page to try and get the cases won't result in escalations, so don't even consider it.--Karek^maps?! 01:42, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

3. Get your witch hunt off arbies, Con - This is a stupid arbitration case, you don't even know what you want out of it, only that he annoys you (and pretty much everyone else) -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 00:21 31 October 2008 (BST)
4. Not subject to arbitration and if you ever try to use any result from this case claiming as much to try and escalate a punishment I'll give you an escalation and a misconduct case of much merit. I'll say this once, clearly, finally, and simply. ARBITRATION CAN NOT AFFECT ADMINISTRATIVE PROCESSES. Misconduct is an administrative process. --Karek^maps?! 01:38, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Lulz. Was the restarted numbering a statement? Or just editing error? --xoxo 12:30, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

I think an error, so fixed it. If I am mistaken, I be sorry monsieur Karek.-- dǝǝɥs oʇ ɯɐds: sʎɐʍ1ɐ! 13:05, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

St. Iscariot vs. Cheese

This is a case over the ruling in the Jorm/Zeug case. Cheese has exceeded his remit as arbitrator in this case by ordering the circumvention of established wiki procedure.

I wish to have sections of his ruling stricken and declared unenforceable.

I will accept any arbitrator who has shown an understanding for following established wiki policy and procedure in their edit history. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 10:15, 30 September 2008 (BST)

I can has arby? --HAHAHA DISREGARD THAT, I SUCK COCKS 23:38, 30 September 2008 (BST)

I accept Bob. He has long shown that he follows wiki policy and procedure to the letter. -- Cheese 23:39, 30 September 2008 (BST)

My indiscretions are by choice, not by lack of knowledge. You'll also note that I was more than courteous and impartial in my previous case. I take being an arbitrator seriously. --HAHAHA DISREGARD THAT, I SUCK COCKS 00:31, 1 October 2008 (BST)

Seriously though, I think this case is one of the most moronic that has ever been brought. Iscariot basically wants my ruling stricken so that a deleted page can be restored just to be deleted again next week. This is stupid and a waste of time on everyone's part. I refuse to play any part in this. -- Cheese 00:16, 1 October 2008 (BST)

Then the arby ruling will happen without any input from you whatsoever. And if he finds an arbitrator sympathetic to his side, he'll get what he wants, thus just wasting more time when the page gets re-deleted. If he's serious, go along, or find representation. You should know all of this. Save others time by sacrificing a little to go with the case.-- dǝǝɥs oʇ ɯɐds: sʎɐʍ1ɐ! 00:28, 1 October 2008 (BST)

Fine. I still think this is moronic. But SA has a point. I will represent myself. Arbitrators who want in, please leave a note. -- Cheese 00:31, 1 October 2008 (BST)

Wait a minute. You can not arbitrate against someone that doesn't choose to participate in the arbitration. Then the arby ruling will happen without any input from you whatsoever. This is complete bullshit. If this was the case then I could go back and find either old pages that the users have "abandoned" or for that matter users that aren't as active these days and set up cases against them, pick my buddy to arby, and get whatever I wanted done. Arbies has to have BOTH parties involved and if Cheese refuses to participate then he can not be forced to. Arbies is an option not required for conflict resolution. --– Nubis ^NWO 13:55, 1 October 2008 (BST)

Shhh, don't tell the peoplez da truth!-- dǝǝɥs oʇ ɯɐds: sʎɐʍ1ɐ! 00:39, 2 October 2008 (BST)

Actually the rules say an Arbies case can be made without participation of the other side.... however there s no point doing so as without their agreement to enter the process there s no way to make them accept the outcome! --Honestmistake 02:30, 2 October 2008 (BST)

And that loophole right there is the crux of what is fucking wrong with this wiki. That needs to be closed up. --– Nubis ^NWO 03:09, 2 October 2008 (BST)

You're wrong, sorry. --HAHAHA DISREGARD THAT, I SUCK COCKS 14:12, 1 October 2008 (BST)

It's not really a loophole though is it? You can't force someone to accept arbitration, it goes totally counter to the meaning of the word! Perhaps a seperate procedure for such cases might work but that would really be a case of asking for judgement rather than a negotiated settlement and there is no way that the person bringing such a case should have any control over who rules on it... Hell such a thing should probably be open to public vote like deletions is!--Honestmistake 14:24, 3 October 2008 (BST)

Actually it's probably a good chance to clarify established wiki procedure and underline where Arbitration fits on this wiki. If deletions can be forced through by 'popular' vote (ie meatpuppets) without recourse to arbitration then it's anarchy, a good example is wan's direct recourse to deletion twice now with both the original UZM and its redirect. As it is the deletions vote is an easy bad faith way of not bothering with arbitration. As for your ruling being 'unenforceable' ... well it came to the same conclusion as wan's delete request, Iscariot's vote and upheld jorm's request for deletion! It doesn't override or circumvent but rather concurs. It would be enforceable after the vote cos even if the Keep's won the day I would have requested speedy deletion as per your ruling. Finally, as original author I changed my vote to speedy delete and isn't that justification in itself for speedy deletion (criteria #7 Author Edit Only)? Isn't there a procedure to deal with litigious members on this wiki? They're generally a huge waste of time otherwise. --Zeug 07:42, 1 October 2008 (BST)

Quit your whining, and quit trying to play the victim. No one buys it. You started this problem, and you escalated it. Time and time again, repeatedly. By refusing to refusing to allow groups them to edit themselves from a public, community page they wanted nothing to do with. You are the one who caused the friction and drama: this is fallout from a situation you started, fomented and perpetuated. You know it. I know it. Everyone else knows it.

But anyway... We apologise for this interruption, and return you now to your regularly scheduled programming: Zeug's usual arguments ad hominen, facile dissemblings and assorted "other general whinging". --WanYao 08:36, 1 October 2008 (BST)

Shhhh ... it's OK wan. I'm sure everybody understands your pain and we're all here for you buddy. And don't worry, even with 4 v/b's, 2 deletions and an arbi case called against me over the last few days I can assure you I feel in no way victimized. Quite the opposite, I love the wiki process and I love UD and its social network. And with this case maybe we can put a brake on meatpuppet attacks in the deletions vote.--Zeug 12:40, 1 October 2008 (BST)

I'll arbitrate, but you should know that arbitration has a long history of ordering deletions, and frankly, if a decent, impartial arbitrator orders it (as seems to have happened in this case), it is a better system than internet democracy because the decision is made by someone who has all the relevant facts, as presented by the parties involved -- boxy ^{talk • i} 10:23 1 October 2008 (BST)

I do not accept Bob, for obvious reasons, and will not accept Boxy due to his sysop status. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 11:49, 3 October 2008 (BST)

why must you hurt my feelings when i can obviously be imapartial when I arbitrate --HAHAHA DISREGARD THAT, I SUCK COCKS 16:07, 3 October 2008 (BST)

I'm somewhat new to Arbies, having only added myself recently, but I'd be willing.--Drawde ^{Talk To Me! DORIS Яed Яum Defend Ridleybonk! I know Nothing!} 20:06, 12 October 2008 (BST)

I also offer to arby. --Haliman - Talk 16:28, 13 October 2008 (BST)

Pick me! I want to be the Arbitatortot. I love going to Arby's. --Sonny Corleone ^{DORIS MSD pr0n} 18:00, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Arbitration Cases in Progress

ShadowScope vs. Midianian

Involved Users	ShadowScope vs. Midianian
Arbitrator	Zs
Created	16:16, 27 October 2008 (UTC) by ShadowScope
Status	Finished.
Summary	Dispute over whether or not Suggestion:20081022 Burnt out cars is a dupe.

Archives

• List of Arbitration Cases