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

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

Iscariot vs Sgt Raiden

1st Chunk

Moved from main page

And there is no user named St. Iscariot. If there was we would permaban him as a sock puppet account made to mock. ... like you were.--– Nubis ^NWO 17:10, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Fixed in accordance with the users wishes. Iscariot, if you wish to take me to A/VB, feel free. I am not an alt and I am eager for you to make an arse of yourself. Liberty 09:22, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Fiexed correctly, a user may be known as whatever they wish, see User:Krazy Monkey, just because someone edits in bad faith does not limit their usage of a given moniker. You'll notice that I'm the only one that it links to as well. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 16:28, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

You can not call yourself Saint Iscariot any more than Sgt. Raiden could make a case against "Iscariot the Asshole that needs to shut the Fuck Up and give it a Rest". So, shut the fuck up and give it a rest.--– Nubis ^NWO 17:10, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Calling himself what he wants is very different from calling someone else an asshole. Cheese (aka User:Krazy Monkey) has been involved in a couple of cases as only “Cheese”, which is much further from his real username than St. Iscariot is from Iscariot's. Not to mention that there already exists a case involving a St. Iscariot. So, why don't you give it a rest. Letting him call himself St. Iscariot isn't going to kill you. Or anyone else, for that matter. --Midianian^|T|DS|C:RCS| 17:40, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

You might want to try making that point again when Iscariot is commonly referred to as whatever he is claiming as his titles. St. Iscariot makes sense, St. Iscariot Wiki Martyr Protector of the Consensus does not and only serves as some ridiculous claim to make himself, illigitimately seem more authoritative. Like when he claims he runs and is the voice of MallTour, he isn't.--Judge Karke, self-proclaimed Decider of Everything and Ruler of All 01:41, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Also, in the Archives, Cheese's first case does refer to him as Cheese AKA Krazy Monkey and Micheal Read is referred to as SexyLegsRead. --– Nubis ^NWO 17:19, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Precedent -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 17:35, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I r not newb. =/ Lrn to indent. -- Cheese 17:38, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

2nd Chunk

Moved from main page

Link(s) are in this vandalism case. It appears from that case that Raiden has been posting false information about the Mall Tour, and impersonating others while doing so. --Pestolence^(talk) 00:49, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

I saw the vandalism case. However it looks like a newbie mistake. As for the "false information", in cases like these most people would change the edit in question and leave a comment on the users talk page about it. Anyway, by the looks of things he made the claims about Mall Tour attacking when you guys were only 1 suburb away, so it's understandable that he would have thought that you guys were attacking. If you are refering to something else then please point it out, but this is a very common newbie mistake. - Jedaz - 01:03/16/01/2009

The following is directed at Jedaz. Quoting from the Arbitration Guidelines "When two or more users don't agree on how a page should be edited, a case in arbitration should be created, so an outside and neutral person can help solve the conflict". The Mall Tour 2009 disagrees with the outright lies he is posting about our group, see this edit. I have access to all levels of the public and private Mall Tour boards and coded the entire Mall Tour 2009 pages. I announce the targets and decide where the Tour will progress to. He is lying about the Tour, and by the definition of the Arbitration Guidelines the two parties in this arbitration disagree with his edits; he believes he can make them, we dispute them. Therefore arbitration. Arbitration was also recommended by a current sysop on this wiki as a way to resolve the obvious differences. I reject any offer to arbitrate you may make , and so, following Arbitration Guidelines I invite you to confine your responses to the talk page. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 00:58, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Considering you haven't even spoken to the other user, bar telling him to come here, I think you've misinterpreted Boxy's statement. Usually, a dispute as trivial as this can be solved by simply leaving a polite request on the user's talk page, especially in the case where the user is relatively new to the wiki. If they then continue to edit in the manner that aggrieves you, then you bring it here. Arbitration should be a last resort in an edit dispute where normal dialogue has failed, not the first. -- Cheese 01:07, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

And I quote Boxy "As to him being annoying, that's a matter for arbies -- boxy talk • teh rulz 04:46 15 January 2009 (BST)". We find him annoying, hence arbies at Boxy's suggestion. That sentence is not open to interpretation. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 01:21, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

So your reason for arbitration is 1 edit? 1 edit which you did not even talk to the user about. Talk to him first and then you may have a case if you can't resolve the dispute, but until then you have nothing. Arbitration isn't designed to be the first place you take your issues, the other persons talk page is. - Jedaz - 01:12/16/01/2009

Now I know you aren't paying attention, you say one edit and at the same time that you've read the vandalism case, there are two distinct edits, even though the first one was removed he continued his behaviour. I'm not required to talk with a user first, unless you want to bring me a policy or statute that says otherwise. We at the Mall Tour have enough to do without reverting every single edit made by idiots. This will remove an idiot. This is what arbitration is for. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 01:21, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Oh really? I was sure it was for the settling of edit disputes. =O Wait...it is. This will remove an idiot. This is what arbitration is for. Is this an admittance that the case was created in bad faith, purely to drive a user from the wiki? -- Cheese 01:30, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Nice try Cheese, but don't try and put words into my mouth, this is about an edit conflict, what he may and may not post about my event. He believes he is allowed to post lies, we disagree. My personal opinion of the user does not change that. Also, if I'd wanted him gone from the game, this case wouldn't be here and he'd be on his way to leaving. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 01:48, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Ah yes, I forgot you were a letter of the rules type person. If you read the first paragraph of this page you will see that it says that "there are occasions where wiki users find themselves unable to reach accord", you have made no attempt to reach a solution. The basis of arbitration is to find a fair resolution for both parties who are unable to come to one on their own. So while it may not be written in stone, you are going against the spirit of what arbitration is all about by not trying to resolve your issue reasonably beforehand. Precedence has shown cases to be thrown out if the person who brought fourth the case did not try to resolve it prior to arbitration. - Jedaz - 01:32/16/01/2009

You can try and rules lawyer me if you like, you'll lose. I will dispute that on grounds that page summaries are vague to conserve space, however the guidelines are clear that this case is valid and that their conciseness overrules the summary. Also recent precedent shows that your notion of cases being dismissed is fallacious. Enjoy. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 01:48, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Actually if you knew me you'ld realize that I'm almost the complete opposite of a rules lawyer. But if you read the title it says "Guidelines for Arbitration Requests", so there is nothing saying that you have to get to the next phase of arbitration. Oh, and by the way, dismissal of cases is based on an arbitrators decision (of course with adequate time for discussion about it is my philosophy), so unless Sgt Raiden wants this to continue, or other members of the community think this case has merit, I will remove this. - Jedaz - 02:00/16/01/2009

Actually if you knew me you'ld realize that I'm almost the complete opposite of a rules lawyer. But if you read the title it says "Guidelines for Arbitration Requests", so there is nothing saying that you have to get to the next phase of arbitration. Oh, and by the way, dismissal of cases is based on an arbitrators decision (of course with adequate time for discussion about it is my philosophy), so unless Sgt Raiden wants this to continue, or other members of the community think this case has merit, I will remove this. - Jedaz - 02:00/16/01/2009

You're not hurting me by doing that, you're hurting him. Go for it, I'll seek satisfaction in other ways and you've just caused another newbie to leave the game. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 02:02, 16 January 2009 (UTC)