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

A/A

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

How to start a case

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. --Showcase^Talk 17:05, 9 April 2008 (BST)

dear god. No. --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{[cloned] [mod]} 18:28, 9 April 2008 (BST)

If you're talking about starting a case against the dead or those Something Awful guys, I realy wouldn't bother, theyve made it fairly clear that they don't trust the arbitration thing, and don't want it on more than one occasion, so they'd do their best not to have one. It's not a unique veiwpoint, there's plenty of other users who don't trust it either, and the SA lot do seem kinda paranoid that everybody is out to get them. Even if you did somehow get them to agree, finding an arbitrator would be another problem, I can't see many people wanting to touch the case.--Seventythree^Talk 18:29, 9 April 2008 (BST)

And what would be your objective? Because if you want an arbitration case about how the content on a single page or subject should be shaped you only the specific editors you have the conflict with should be involved. But if it's about an general editing restriction there would be little chance it would be honerated as it would be clearly against the good faith rule. If so, forget about it. It would be nothing more then dramawhoring.-- Vista +1 18:36, 9 April 2008 (BST)

Good Faith rule? This group isn't the least bit worried about good faith? since day one they have done nothing but create bad faith. Is there no recourse? --

Showcase^Talk 20:51, 9 April 2008 (BST)

The group exist of out of a couple of hundred individuals at least. And you want us to target them all for the actions of what, five users? on this wiki. How fair. Nope, we'll subject them to the same rules as everybody else. And those rules assume individual responsibility, not group responsibility.-- Vista +1 17:44, 10 April 2008 (BST)

I did say I would name specific individuals if it was necessary...maybe some day. --

Showcase^Talk 18:05, 10 April 2008 (BST)

Also, good luck finding an arbitrator willing to take the case. --

.

. <== DDR Approved Editor 18:44, 9 April 2008 (BST)

I'll do it. I'll arbitrate if both parties want me. -- C h e e s e 21:02, 9 April 2008 (BST)

meh. I appreciate the offer but I've decided not to bother. Ultimately, I don't think anything I do will result in what really should be done with these jokesters. On the SA forums, if we went there with total asshatery that included spamming and trolling, we would be permabanned in just a few days. Why they expect to be allowed to run rampant here is beyond me. --

Showcase^Talk 23:19, 9 April 2008 (BST)

For unfunny trolling, you would be banned in the first day. --

LABIA on the INTERNET

^{Dunell Hills Corpseman}

#24 -

|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| ^TMG 01:21, 28 June 2008 (BST)

Arbitration

What do Arbitrators do exactly? I'm interested in volenteering but I'd like to know a bit more about what they do. -- Krazy Monkey ^W! 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. --Sirens^{T RR} 21:23, 11 June 2006 (BST)

An index?

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. -- Atticus Rex ^{mfu pif} Δ 21:36, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

If you want to make a page called UDWiki:Administration/Arbitration/Precedents and do just that, feel free. But don't expect people to do it for you. – Nubis 21:38, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Hell, we should do it for every Admin page. --User:Axe27/Sig 22:37, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

It's not a bad idea... will take some work, and those willing to do it.--THE Godfather of Яesensitized, Anime Sucks^{Yalk | W! U! WMM| CC CPFOAS LOE ZHU | Яezzens} 22:44, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm willing to tackle it, but the layout is gonna take some thought so it's comprehensive without getting so bogged down that people can't easily find what they're looking for. Dunno why Nubis thinks I'm just showing up here to place orders... maybe he just doesn't know me. :D -- Atticus Rex ^{mfu pif} Δ 01:00, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Maybe something like this, it seems too work, at least a little, with listing suggestions precedents.--Karek^maps?! 01:39, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

This probably would be useful to have so that people can see what the reasoning was that people applied to similar cases in the past. Of course, precedents shouldn't be binding - arbitration is a pretty easy system to game, you just need two friends willing to pretend to be "neutral arbiter" and "the other party". --Toejam 13:01, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Arbitration Revamp

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, Be Bold! and work on it. Cheers. --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{[cloned] [mod]} 17:12, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

ok, so i managed to get more free time and completed the 4th archive. --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{[cloned] [mod]} 18:39, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

The Archive, Again

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_{(at the time of this comment, It'll be fixed probably before anyone reads this)} due to a period not included in the new archive. Whenever any such errors are found please, feel free to fix them.--Karek^maps?! 20:26, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh, forgot to mention, you can find a link using the old style system for every arbitration case here, please do not edit that page though.--Karek^maps?! 20:28, 7 February 2008 (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!--'BP^Tmz 07:31, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

To be fair 3 of those cases are closed.--Karek^maps?! 10:26, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

It's the silence before the storm... --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{[cloned] [mod]} 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!--Seventythree^Talk 15:41, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

3 of them are closed? even better!--'BP^Tmz 18:57, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Although it messes up us people wanting the experience of running a case. still, cant complain. --Ross less ne s s^{Want a Location Image?} 18:58, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Don't expect that to last for long, Funt's already stirring up shit.--Karek^maps?! 02:19, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

ARRGGH! Stop bringing up Simon and Garfunkel. I just got "Cecilia" out of my head. --Sonny Corleone ^{RRF DORIS CRF MOB pr0n} 02:20, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Simon and Garfunkel are better than Outta love... --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{[cloned] [mod]} 02:26, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

those cases are both done, haggy, wanna archive?--x o x o 07:32, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

He... if people though we were having too many arbitration cases, look at jul-sept 2006 period... --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{[cloned] [mod]} 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. Conndraka^{mod TDHPD CFT} 13:57, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

And its all kicked off again. Wonderful.--Seventythree^Talk 13:58, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

hagnat said:

It's the silence before the storm...

I hate being right sometimes... --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{[cloned] [mod]} 14:59, 31 March 2008 (BST)

pfft you love it, but still, very impressive hagz.--x o x o 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.--Karek^maps?! 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. - Jedaz - 23:17/24/03/2008

I plan to, but it's simply easier if they understand why they shouldn't be butting in in the first place.--Karek^maps?! 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. --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{[cloned] [mod]} 15:16, 23 May 2008 (BST)

I second that... --Honestmistake 19:28, 23 May 2008 (BST)

We should vote in people... otherwise the list should be removed. -- AHLG T G THE END IS NIGH! 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. --Sonny Corleone ^{RRF DORIS MSD MOB pr0n} 19:37, 23 May 2008 (BST)

Lose it, or per recruitment, timestamp it. Not reviewed after a month, then deleted. --Ross less ne s s^{Want a Location Image?} 19:39, 23 May 2008 (BST)

Alright, makes sense. People ignore the list anyways. -- AHLG T G THE END IS NIGH! 19:41, 23 May 2008 (BST)

It's done. --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{[cloned] [mod]} 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.--Karek^maps?! 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!--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.--Karek^maps?! 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.Conndraka^{mod TTBA CFT} 01:52, 24 May 2008 (BST) Oh Wait... It already says that. Hmmmm Conndraka^{mod TTBA CFT} 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.--x o x o 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. --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{[cloned] [mod]} 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!--Honestmistake 15:56, 24 May 2008 (BST)

Tried something to help check the contributions of the users listed there... fucking ugly, reverted it. --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{[cloned] [mod]} 16:14, 24 May 2008 (BST)

Not that bad, except for the superscript. -- AHLG T G THE END IS NIGH! 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? --Ross less ne s s^{Want a Location Image?} 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. - Jedaz - 00:31/30/05/2008

It's always the ones you least suspect.--x o x o 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. - Jedaz - 01:37/30/05/2008

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. --The Grimch ^{U! E! WAT!} 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? --Akule ^{Maker of fine, hand-crafted UDWiki sass since 2006 -- Akule ^{School's back in session™}} 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.--Karek^maps?! 22:07, 29 May 2008 (BST)

Akule, i was banned for a day for posting on a policy discussion you posted. Thats pretty official. --The Grimch ^{U! E! WAT!} 03:21, 31 May 2008 (BST)

How do you let go a case that has no effective end to it's ruling?--Karek^maps?! 06:19, 29 May 2008 (BST)

Discussion of Arbitration Cases

Cyberbob240 vs. 2 Cool

This ~~circlejerk association~~ group have plastered their template on a number of pages which, although they have been created or worked on by 2 Cool members, are in the public namespace and/or cover topics which are group-neutral. For them to leave their (completely ugly no less) template on these pages is borderline spam, and completely inappropriate.

The page list:

The goal of this case? To have the template removed from the above pages and to have the group barred from placing it in inappropriate places in future. --HAHAHA DISREGARD THAT, I SUCK COCKS 06:29, 11 October 2008 (BST)

How can you circlejerk with only two people?--x o x o 06:30, 11 October 2008 (BST)

By being very, very good at it. --HAHAHA DISREGARD THAT, I SUCK COCKS 06:32, 11 October 2008 (BST)

Oh I think he's including our fanclub.--Nallan (Talk) 06:35, 11 October 2008 (BST)

I just hit save page on my post about this. Damn, you guys are quick.--– Nubis ^NWO 06:32, 11 October 2008 (BST)

FYI - this is very close to the DMZ case and they lost. Just something to think about.--– Nubis ^NWO 06:32, 11 October 2008 (BST)

Can you link to that case? --HAHAHA DISREGARD THAT, I SUCK COCKS 06:37, 11 October 2008 (BST)

It wasn't so much an arbies case but an [SA vs DHPD flame war] on the DH talk page. A few sysops stepped in and did agree that the DMZ category on every thing was excessive.* It's hard (but amusing) to get to the meat of the issue through the bitching, but TL;DR version is that DHPD had the DMZ tag on things not in DH, the sysops said that wasn't "fair" and that no other group was allowed to do that (the Dead had members banned when they made the City of the Dead category), the tags were removed and I think a page about the DMZ was added under DH space and brief mentions of it were allowed on certain pages. I really do try to "move on" from SA vs DH drama. --– Nubis ^NWO 06:50, 11 October 2008 (BST)

This is the original DMZ concern] brought up by AHLG.--– Nubis ^NWO 06:56, 11 October 2008 (BST)

Despite the recent attack of the oh-so-clevers by 2 Cool this case is pressing ahead regardless. --HAHAHA DISREGARD THAT, I SUCK COCKS 06:50, 11 October 2008 (BST)

I'm sorry but i don't understand what you want. Not only do those pages directly relate to alim (they were created as offshoots of it) but they are now housed as subpages. What is your concern? --x o x o 06:55, 11 October 2008 (BST)

The fact that I'm almost certain that you're lying about more than one of those pages having been created as part of ALiM. --HAHAHA DISREGARD THAT, I SUCK COCKS 06:58, 11 October 2008 (BST)

You started an arbies case because your "almost certain" about something? Wow. No all of these were created by Jed and nick to enhance ALiM, I'm ACTUALLY certain about that.--CyberRead240 07:00, 11 October 2008 (BST)

No, my being "almost certain" was irrelevant until the pages were moved to the ALiM namespace. --HAHAHA DISREGARD THAT, I SUCK COCKS 07:01, 11 October 2008 (BST)

Well that's fucking A bob, but they were all created by Nick and I. I'll do a timeline for you. August 07 - 2 Cool created, October 07 - ALiM created, the months between then and now - all those small side projects created. Comprendé? Some of them have been edited by mulitple people, some by just Nick and/or I. The point is all the basic ideas for the pages come from 2 Cool and the team over at ALiM, and further almost all those pages are integrally related to ALiM and a number of it's locations. Hence the navbar and hence they are now subpages there. Stop saying random shit you are almost certain of (and entirely wrong about) and tell me what the fuck you want from this arby case now the situation has changed.--x o x o 07:07, 11 October 2008 (BST)

There is no fucking way the Great Fire page (at least) has been around for such a short period of time. GTFO. --HAHAHA DISREGARD THAT, I SUCK COCKS 07:08, 11 October 2008 (BST)

I have no clue where to respond to any of this, but since my concern is trying to head off arbies (until we can get it fixed) then I will reply here. When I suggested moving the pages to subpages I meant future ones. The problem now is that ALiM effectively "owns" these "historical " pages. I swear the Great Fire one has been around for a while... Bob, what do you want as an outcome for this? I don't quite see where you are going with this. Help me out.--– Nubis ^NWO 07:04, 11 October 2008 (BST)

The ones they actually created can stay where they are. The ones they didn't (Great Fire probably being the only one in this category actually) need to be moved back where they belong. --HAHAHA DISREGARD THAT, I SUCK COCKS 07:07, 11 October 2008 (BST)

Nubis, I can assure you, these were all created by Nick and Jed. I don't know if they were intended to tie them in with ALiM at the time of their creation, but eventually they all did, and they all flourished from there.--CyberRead240 07:05, 11 October 2008 (BST)

Great Fire has been around for awhile, my guess would be janurary or so. But it is certified 2 Cool created, i guarantee it.--x o x o 07:08, 11 October 2008 (BST)

I made the Great Fire pages. There was a deletions case over it.--Nallan (Talk) 07:09, 11 October 2008 (BST)

I'm looking through the Deletions archive and I'm not seeing it. Mind pointing me in the right direction? --HAHAHA DISREGARD THAT, I SUCK COCKS 07:16, 11 October 2008 (BST)

here It was about the category, doesn't prove anything, but it shows the whole "wiki vs 2cool" thing.--CyberRead240 07:17, 11 October 2008 (BST)

That has absolutely nothing to do with anything we're talking about whatsoever. I'm laughing at you for thinking it does, as the words "2 Cool" are not mentioned anywhere. Not once. --HAHAHA DISREGARD THAT, I SUCK COCKS 07:20, 11 October 2008 (BST)

It's your word against that of people who have no real emotional involvement in this case (I actually don't, believe it or not; as far as my personal emotions go I couldn't care less about the outcome of this case) without any hard proof either way. If you can't produce any of said proof I suggest you cram it and nominate acceptable arbitrators. --HAHAHA DISREGARD THAT, I SUCK COCKS 07:12, 11 October 2008 (BST)

I did find the deletions case here. From April at least. Can we do this: can we move back the great fire one (since it seems to honestly be the oldest and most linked) and come up with a smaller more focused nav template for it? Then in future you can make the other pages in your space and have whatever template you want.

The main reason I ask for this considerable compromise from the ALiM guys on the Great Fire is because it is a great portal into ALiM since almost any page in Malton can link to the Great Fire. If you compromise and put that one back with a more "neutral" template/links you may get more vistors to your project because of it.--– Nubis ^NWO 07:19, 11 October 2008 (BST)

I... suppose I would be willing to compromise on that front as long as the new template was strictly neutral. --HAHAHA DISREGARD THAT, I SUCK COCKS 07:21, 11 October 2008 (BST)

We're discussing... And just for the record, I have people who can (hopefully) back me up as creator of that page, for instance Ros or User:Saromu. They'd remember posting on the talk page at the time.--Nallan (Talk) 07:23, 11 October 2008 (BST)

Personally, I hope that 2cool don't "compromise". They created the page for their own lulz and fostered it into its current existance. They shouldn't have to compromise with anyone.--CyberRead240 07:26, 11 October 2008 (BST)

They've already been more or less forced to move pages into their namespace. --HAHAHA DISREGARD THAT, I SUCK COCKS 07:27, 11 October 2008 (BST)

It's simple - if they didn't move the pages to their name space then they were spamming the ALiM stuff (see DMZ). By moving the pages they can have whatever they want on it, however, if they start spamming links to the pages elsewhere then we will have an issue. --– Nubis ^NWO 07:34, 11 October 2008 (BST)

No, they wanted to have it in the ALiM name space from day one, they regretted that they didn't. But you can feel big for just one moment bob, congrats on your win ;)--CyberRead240 07:29, 11 October 2008 (BST)

Uh... what? They can't have regretted it all that much; it isn't like they haven't had nearly a year to fix it. --HAHAHA DISREGARD THAT, I SUCK COCKS 07:34, 11 October 2008 (BST)

I wouldn't say regret, but i've always felt they would be better of as ALiM subpages, i just never cared that much and neither did anyone else - until now.--x o x o 07:38, 11 October 2008 (BST)

I'm not even sure how it go to this but it is totally irrelevant at any rate. We moved those pages to subpages of ALiM because bob was concerned that we were spamming the alim template on non alim stuff. By moving them there and then explaining the number of ways the pages were related to alim this should no longer be an issue. While no one can definatively prove who created the great fire page (sigh, thanks kev) i suggest you ask wan, boxy, karek etc who have all been involved with 2 Cool stuff and might remember it. I'm not sure who you think i would lie about this...--x o x o 07:24, 11 October 2008 (BST)

Great, before you were willing to compromise but now you magically aren't? Yippee. Nubis' suggestion has nothing to do with who made the page, you'll note. --HAHAHA DISREGARD THAT, I SUCK COCKS 07:26, 11 October 2008 (BST)

Talk:Amusing Locations in Malton/Great Fire of 1912 - that is direct copy pasted from the old talk, check the histories there if you don't beleive it. It clear shows Nallan as the first editor of that page and also other users referring to us when editing the page. While i can't prove we created the page i can show you that we were seen even back in Feb and Apr as the operators of the page. My compromise extends as far as making the template substantially less intrusive and moving the pages to be alim subpages, i'm halfway through achieving these goals.--x o x o 07:28, 11 October 2008 (BST)

We aren't arguing ownership, we are asking for compromise on the template and asking that the most known page be put back (which would be in your best interest anyway like I said above) --– Nubis ^NWO 07:30, 11 October 2008 (BST)

They've already been more or less forced to move pages into their namespace. --HAHAHA DISREGARD THAT, I SUCK COCKS 07:27, 11 October 2008 (BST)

Sorry, "we"? Thats wonderful that you have outlined what you want, but they created the page, if they want to do it, they can, if they don't, case closed and move on.--CyberRead240 07:32, 11 October 2008 (BST)

Yes, "we", Nubis and I are arguing more or less the same thing. --HAHAHA DISREGARD THAT, I SUCK COCKS 07:34, 11 October 2008 (BST)

Actually bob is arguing that that page has been around for longer, which is offensive and undermines our argument that these pages are largely run by us and associated with ALiM, hence determining that is important. The old pages are now redirects which should have no influence on through traffic.--x o x o 07:34, 11 October 2008 (BST)

The age of the page and the length of time it spent not under the auspices of ALiM have not embedded it in people's minds as something that should be group-oriented. By leaving it out of your namespace and putting a more unobtrusive and neutral template on it you will attract far less ire. --HAHAHA DISREGARD THAT, I SUCK COCKS 07:39, 11 October 2008 (BST)

Ok, try and comprehend this, extra chromosome or not, just try and comprehend this. Every page on that Navbar, was created by Nick and Jed, as part of the ALiM Wikiproject. So it has ALWAYS been part of ALiM.--CyberRead240 07:43, 11 October 2008 (BST)

har har har aneuploidy joke har har har --HAHAHA DISREGARD THAT, I SUCK COCKS 07:46, 11 October 2008 (BST)

so you understand then, good. I'm glad.--CyberRead240 07:48, 11 October 2008 (BST)

I don't know what ire is, and i'm not too sure i care about how much i attract. Neither am i all that concerned with whether or not people feel it is group orientated, the navbar has been there long enough and during that time the page has more of less function as an ALiM subpage. Not to mention that almost all the redirects come from ALiM locations that ALiM editors have added in. Thus traffic to the page comes mainly through ALiM stuff, and the cycle of life continues.--x o x o 07:41, 11 October 2008 (BST)

Current Situation

You moved a page from the main space via a redirect to your space. It wasn't a group page, but rather an article. That could be seen as vandalism. The core issue is this: if a page is in the main space but a part of the ALiM it can't be spammed with that large template. Period. Since we can't prove exact ownership of the page and the fact that it was in the main space for so long it's very questionable that you choose now to move it. This will all go away by putting the Great Fire back with a more neutral template. Not saying you need to get rid of the template completely or move the others back, but that is the one page causing most of the problems. It's because it seems to be the oldest and most known. The main issue has only been over the size and placement of the nav template. (that's what caught my attention before all of this started, by the way) --– Nubis ^NWO 07:58, 11 October 2008 (BST)

Thank you. That was all getting rather confusing. --HAHAHA DISREGARD THAT, I SUCK COCKS 07:59, 11 October 2008 (BST)

The nav template will change, see my talk page. Also, please wait for people who were around at the early days of the Great Fire and can testify that it was 2 Cool created. We have already said we created it, and quite frankly considering we have been fully honest regarding this entire case, you should have no reason to doubt that. Putting the great fire back would be splitting up the various ALiM related fictional story pages when clearly they should all be grouped together.--x o x o 08:01, 11 October 2008 (BST)

I think if we can provide witnesses this should be open/shut. Can you wait that long?--Nallan (Talk) 08:03, 11 October 2008 (BST)

Have you taken him home to meet mum yet, bob?

Nubis, you can't prove ownership. You are right, but mostly all the signs point towards Jed and Nick creating this page. There is more evidence pointing to that than anything else. Either, you leave it alone and let Jed and Nick do whatever they want with their page, or you ask them nicely to try out your method of spicing up the page. You tell them you like their literary talents, and you find the page very convincing, you compliment them on their job well done, and you try your best to change their opinion on what they should do. It is their page, you should be asking them nicely, not telling them what to do.--CyberRead240 08:08, 11 October 2008 (BST)

Where am I telling them what to do? I've been asking for a compromise all along. I've told them what the situation looks like from the outside. And I did tell them the page is rather well known and would be a great portal/ad for their project. But thank you for your timely advice, Mike.

(edit conflicted from before) Thank you for seeing to the nav concerns. I understand your side in regards to keeping your ALiM stories together, but let's be honest. This is a wiki. It's a matter of a link on a page.

About witnesses, if you can find actual links in their contribs or something that substantial that would be great, otherwise it is just one person's word against anothers, you know? I would hope that you would be flattered that this particular article would be so well known! I hope this is worked out for both sides.--– Nubis ^NWO 08:11, 11 October 2008 (BST)

Its Michael, thanks, Nub.--CyberRead240 08:14, 11 October 2008 (BST)

Oh of course, we're very flattered, but also at the same time insulted that anyone could doubt we created it. I'll get to work on those contribs.--Nallan (Talk) 08:17, 11 October 2008 (BST)

Have you not been paying attention whatsoever? Nobody is currently doubting that you created the page; all Nubis and I are doing is making a suggestion that would harmonise the Great Fire page's image and its format. --HAHAHA DISREGARD THAT, I SUCK COCKS 08:20, 11 October 2008 (BST)

I call Bullshit! You threatened arbies over it, unless you don't think we created the page on what grounds would you attempt to convince an impartial adjudicator that we must relocate the page?--x o x o 08:25, 11 October 2008 (BST)

Hence the word currently, dipshit. lrn2read --HAHAHA DISREGARD THAT, I SUCK COCKS 08:26, 11 October 2008 (BST)

Well if you don't want an arbitration case please keep your pathetic begging off this page.--x o x o 08:27, 11 October 2008 (BST)

Your consistent misunderstanding of where I'm now coming from is hilariously sad. My argument is that with the image most people have in their minds of the Great Fire page it would be prudent of you to move it back to the public namespace and put a more low-key template on it. I'm not disputing who owns it - and haven't been for some time, you pathetic excuse for intelligence. --HAHAHA DISREGARD THAT, I SUCK COCKS 08:31, 11 October 2008 (BST)

wat....so this is your story until it is proved wrong, then once that happens, you will change it and litter your comments with insults? Excellent.--CyberRead240 08:35, 11 October 2008 (BST)

Mate i can take all the insults you can hurl at me, keep em coming, but get them off this page. Because no matter what you think would be prudent of me to do, it has nothing to do with arbitration. Unless you are suggestion we get an impartial adjudicator to also make suggestions of what i might perhaps be interested in doing? To me that just seems silly. --x o x o 08:38, 11 October 2008 (BST)

Okay, so would you be happy if the great fire page was moved back to Great Fire of 1912, however remained with the ALiM template in it's new slimline format (anyone with coding skills interested in helping out that'd be appreciated) and apart from the fact that the page is not in the ALiM namespace would be identical in it's format to the other ALiM subpages and would continue to largely fall under the jurisdiction of the ALiM team? And while yes, i am proud (and somewhat taken a back) that you feel the Great Fire page is as ancient as the wiki, i'm more concerned that you seem unwilling to accept that we did indeed make it and that we feel the ALiM navbar is an integral part of the page.--x o x o 08:17, 11 October 2008 (BST)

I'd be cool with that. (for the record, I do believe you guys - or someone with you - made it, but I can't just go OK. I sort of should at least ask for proof, ya know?) ALso, I posted a potential idea for a nav template on your page.--– Nubis ^NWO 08:25, 11 October 2008 (BST)

And just for the record, you are clear on what I mean about spamming pages with the nav. temp. and why I stepped in? Just make any future pages in your space and we'll probably never have this issue again. --– Nubis ^NWO 08:29, 11 October 2008 (BST)

Funny that you should be trying to pull that insult, Michael. You've been arguing 2 Cool's point for them everywhere the argument has even looked like it's taking place - in many cases more strenuously than they have. I suggest you retract that line of attack before you make yourself look like even more silly. --HAHAHA DISREGARD THAT, I SUCK COCKS 08:20, 11 October 2008 (BST)

Not arguing for them, arguing against you. But lolk ill stay out of stuff if its giving you difficulty :)--CyberRead240 08:22, 11 October 2008 (BST)

Sorry, but that's one of the shittiest attempts to twist out of an accusation I've ever seen. Not going to fly, sorry. --HAHAHA DISREGARD THAT, I SUCK COCKS 08:25, 11 October 2008 (BST)

Oh your a talented wordsmith if I ever did see one.--CyberRead240 08:26, 11 October 2008 (BST)

Such a shame you aren't. --HAHAHA DISREGARD THAT, I SUCK COCKS 08:34, 11 October 2008 (BST)

No u--CyberRead240 08:49, 11 October 2008 (BST)

Hey look it's Bob. And he still remembers how to troll people. What a shocker.--Kristi of the Dead 08:45, 11 October 2008 (BST)

barely, our epic victory over him has caused my respect for him to plummet.--x o x o 08:50, 11 October 2008 (BST)

Right, because I'm so interested in how much some tard on the Internet respects me. Yeah, you just hit that nail right on the head with that one. --HAHAHA DISREGARD THAT, I SUCK COCKS 09:07, 11 October 2008 (BST)

I'll arbitrate. Looks interesting. D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 08:30, 11 October 2008 (BST)

Uhhh, I think I already did... :) --– Nubis ^NWO 08:32, 11 October 2008 (BST)

Inexpert Great Fire Testimony

The great fire stuff (Created by J3D and Nick) Was created before february. IT was referred to a lot around the arkham sisters debate. The causes section of the article was created by me, much later. Before that it was just a line about a big fire, and the section referring to amusing locations being targetted. thanks --Ross less ne s s^{Want a Location Image?} 10:41, 11 October 2008 (BST)

Yeah, I'm pretty sure they did create the page to fit in with their Arkham Sisters nonsense. Does that mean they own it? No. If you create community pages, you give them to the community to share and interlace with the whole Urban Dead, community created, backstory. Trying to make it an ALiM subpage is ridiculous -- boxy ^{talk • i} 10:55 11 October 2008 (BST)

Wat? Great Fire was way before Arkham Sisters. It should be an ALiM subpage, or directly related somehow, as they compliment each other perfectly.--CyberRead240 11:04, 11 October 2008 (BST)

If Jed, Ros, and I are the only ones to have edited the page, surely we have the right to pull it from the mainspace and put it under ALiM. If none of the editors object then what's the problem?--Nallan (Talk) 11:12, 11 October 2008 (BST)

That's not really a trend we want to start or condone. I hope you can understand why. Also, in this case, the time lapse from creation to relocation is problematic. I would hate it if author's moved all of the pages they wrote under their own space. It wouldn't be a wiki so much as like personal blogs. --– Nubis ^NWO 11:28, 11 October 2008 (BST)

They moved it because they were not allowed to keep their template.--CyberRead240 11:32, 11 October 2008 (BST)

As read said, we only wanted to move the page because the way we had had the page for some months suddenly became an issue (brought up by a certain user with an axe to grind, but that's another story). It just makes sense now to leave all that stuff in the ALiM namespace, grouped together. I assure you the template will be less intrusive (btw Nubis i was thinking we'd go for a complete redesign, although i plan on wikiing as minimally as possible in the coming month) however it will not be group neutral for reasons outlined above, and on my talk page.--x o x o 11:45, 11 October 2008 (BST)

No axe to grind J3D, I happened to notice the template on one of the pages (I forget which) and didn't think it appropriate. Get over yourself. --HAHAHA DISREGARD THAT, I SUCK COCKS 11:48, 11 October 2008 (BST)

Not to mention that you seek out bob's attentions. I reckon it's because drama creation is good for advertising too -- boxy ^{talk • i} 11:53 11 October 2008 (BST)

Can you not see what a mess this would make of the wiki if everyone who created backstory and guide pages started putting their own advertising templates on them, and claiming them as their own? And anyway, you guys are always trying to claim that ALiM itself is a "community project", rather than your own group page that you can do what you like with. I remember the whining that I didn't join in on the "community voting" on it's talk page, when I arced up about that edible locations in malton stuff. Make up your minds, do you want a group page, or a community page. If they're community pages, to be interlaced with locations, suburb and backstory pages, then stop with all the cross-promotional advertising bullshit... if they're your own group pages, then keep them off the community areas of the wiki -- boxy ^{talk • i} 11:45 11 October 2008 (BST)

This is a good example. This was created by Nick (in the last 2 months) under community space, but clearly on something ALiM related. So, now are you guys going to pull this to your space (please don't), why wasn't it made in your space originally? Why doesn't this have the template? Pages like this do make your case for keeping The Great Fire and the other ALiM pages in your space a bit weak. I don't really care what the final outcome is, I just want some consistency. Either all pages are under your space or they are public. (oh and I want categories on these pages, but that's just me).--– Nubis ^NWO 13:00, 11 October 2008 (BST)

Jed and I have discussed and we have decided that we will allow for the Great Fire page to be moved into the mainspace, BUT it must keep the template on it, which we will be working on to make less intrusive - but it will retain links to the other projects - bar the featured locations, which will be removed - and also retaining the link to the 2 Cool group page, thereby crediting us with the concept. We feel this is fair, as it has always been on the page, we created the page, and because it links with the other projects.--Nallan (Talk) 12:40, 11 October 2008 (BST)

I'm not going to bother reading everything before it because tl;dr. There are community pages but there are also group pages. If someone came and fucked with DORIS' New Baghdad page I'd flip a shit. If someone fucked with Red Rum's Siege of Jerusalem page they'd be pissed. If someone messed with the DHPD's DMZ page they'd be pissed. My point? The Great Fire is a group sponsored page. --Sonny Corleone ^{DORIS MSD pr0n} 22:43, 11 October 2008 (BST)

Those are radically different situations. --HAHAHA DISREGARD THAT, I SUCK COCKS 22:52, 11 October 2008 (BST)

Ok. The RRF history pages for the 4 central suburbs. If anyone changed those dramatically the RRF (lolwut) would be mad. --Sonny Corleone ^{DORIS MSD pr0n} 22:54, 11 October 2008 (BST)

Still a different situation. The Great Fire page spent a long time not obviously (to the uninformed observer) part of ALiM. This would be a complete non-issue had 2 Cool pulled their fingers out and moved it before, but as it stands the page shouldn't be in their actual groupspace. By all means link to their space, however. --HAHAHA DISREGARD THAT, I SUCK COCKS 23:07, 11 October 2008 (BST)

Everyone on this wiki versus Iscariot

For being a cuntbagrashshitbitch.--x o x o 16:32, 5 July 2008 (BST)

Fuck yes. Let's do this shit. --brb, church ^{DORIS CGR U!} 16:57, 5 July 2008 (BST)

Oh boy...Who's gonna arbitrate? Everyone's gonna be biased. --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ ^{^{^{^{^{#nerftemplatedsigs}}}}} 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!--x o x o 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. --

.

. <== DDR Approved Editor 17:46, 7 July 2008 (BST)

I'm expecting another Arby's case after this one...Whatever. AYE! --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ ^{^{^{^{^{#nerftemplatedsigs}}}}} 17:13, 5 July 2008 (BST)

I am opting out of this as it was made without my consent. --The Grimch ^{U! E! WAT!} 17:40, 5 July 2008 (BST)

In that case are you willing to arbitrate?--x o x o 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--/~Rakuen~\^Talk I Still Love Grim 03:43, 7 July 2008 (BST)

Oh noez! Bias! Must reject you in the interests of, like, fairness and shit. --

.

. <== DDR Approved Editor 17:46, 7 July 2008 (BST)

Surely you mean everyone else on the wiki? --Ross less ne s s^{Want a Location Image?} 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. --

.

. <== DDR Approved Editor 18:10, 7 July 2008 (BST)

Iscariot versus Everyone on this wiki

Regarding suburb pages -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 22:16, 4 July 2008 (BST)

You are an idiot. -- C h e e s e 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...--x o x o 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. --

.

. <== DDR Approved Editor 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? --Kikashie ^{Read the Dispatch!} 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. --brb, church ^{DORIS CGR U!} 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? --Sonny Corleone ^{DORIS MSD pr0n} 01:58, 5 July 2008 (BST)

I will accept provided you are also bound by the result. --

.

. <== DDR Approved Editor 17:47, 7 July 2008 (BST)

You are someone and thus an interested party. As for myself, i refuse arbitration on the grounds of "What the fuck?" --The Grimch ^{U! E! WAT!} 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. --Ross less ne s s^{Want a Location Image?} 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! --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ ^{^{^{^{^{#nerftemplatedsigs}}}}} 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.) --– Nubis ^NWO 17:21, 6 July 2008 (BST)

Good idea, in principle. In reality, it means it's more that likely we'll end up with Finis. --Sir Bob Fortune ^RR 06:57, 7 July 2008 (BST)

Oh snap!!! I post a random number: 9! DanceDanceRevolution 17:37, 7 July 2008 (BST)

4, and jesus DDR, shorten your siggy... its so clutersome....--/~Rakuen~\^Talk

I Still Love Grim 19:32, 7 July 2008 (BST)

Well, that's ID=13 and that belongs to [Holly]. She links [this LJ]. The system works! --– Nubis ^NWO 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? Swiers 04:19, 8 July 2008 (BST)

You know, Iscariot is part of "everyone on this wiki," so technically this case is also against himself... -- AHLG T G THE END IS NIGH! 04:30, 8 July 2008 (BST)

Cheeseman vs. 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 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: [1] 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. -- Cheeseman ^W!RandomTalk 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...--'BP^Tmz 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.--Seventythree^Talk 00:53, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I accept this arbritration case and will representing myself. I do not accept Blood Panther as Arbritrator.--Thekooks 15:30, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I second that. -- Cheeseman ^W!RandomTalk 21:30, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Everyone on this wiki versus Iscariot

For being a cuntbagrashshitbitch.--x o x o 16:32, 5 July 2008 (BST)

Fuck yes. Let's do this shit. --brb, church ^{DORIS CGR U!} 16:57, 5 July 2008 (BST)

Oh boy...Who's gonna arbitrate? Everyone's gonna be biased. --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ ^{^{^{^{^{#nerftemplatedsigs}}}}} 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!--x o x o 17:12, 5 July 2008 (BST)

I'm expecting another Arby's case after this one...Whatever. AYE! --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ ^{^{^{^{^{#nerftemplatedsigs}}}}} 17:13, 5 July 2008 (BST)

I am opting out of this as it was made without my consent. --The Grimch ^{U! E! WAT!} 17:40, 5 July 2008 (BST)

In that case are you willing to arbitrate?--x o x o 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)

Iscariot versus Everyone on this wiki

Regarding suburb pages -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 22:16, 4 July 2008 (BST)

You are an idiot. -- C h e e s e 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...--x o x o 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. --

.

. <== DDR Approved Editor 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? --Kikashie ^{Read the Dispatch!} 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. --brb, church ^{DORIS CGR U!} 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? --Sonny Corleone ^{DORIS MSD pr0n} 01:58, 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?" --The Grimch ^{U! E! WAT!} 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. --Ross less ne s s^{Want a Location Image?} 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! --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ ^{^{^{^{^{#nerftemplatedsigs}}}}} 17:05, 5 July 2008 (BST)

This crap makes me speachless. Don't spam up the main arbitration page. - Jedaz - 12:47/6/07/2008

You're next for an all encompassing arby case.--x o x o 12:56, 6 July 2008 (BST)

Need Arbitration

Im not exactly sure where to do this but this is the talk page and It was suggested I get one. Anyways Yesterday I mad an edit on the Ackland Mall news annnouncing M-BEK declares war on AMS. M-BEK and AMS has had 2 wars beforehand and we're looking for another one just as fun. However out of nowehere a /zom/ member posted I was killed by a zombie and said I was buthurt or something like that. I really didnt care too much cause he had his own opinion. HWOEVER someone called RedPuppy 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.--Doctor Oberman ^MBEK 19:42, 4 August 2008 (BST)

UDWiki talk:Administration/Arbitration

Contents

General Discussion

A/A

How to start a case

Arbitration

An index?

Archive

Arbitration Revamp

The Archive, Again

sound of silence

General Manners and Whatnot

Removal of arbitrator list

The Grimch versus Conndraka

Discussion of Arbitration Cases

Cyberbob240 vs. 2 Cool

Current Situation

Inexpert Great Fire Testimony

Everyone on this wiki versus Iscariot

Iscariot versus Everyone on this wiki

Cheeseman vs. Kooks

Everyone on this wiki versus Iscariot

Iscariot versus Everyone on this wiki

Need Arbitration

Navigation menu

Page actions

Page actions

Personal tools

General

Search

Resources

Wiki

Toolbox