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
Akule AnimeSucks Atticus Rex Axe Hack Blood Panther boxy Cheeseman Conndraka Cyberbob240 DanceDanceRevolution DevilAsh Dragon fang	Drawde Funt Solo Gus Thomas Galaxy125 hagnat Haliman111 Honestmistake Iscariot J3D Jedaz Karek Kikashie	Labine50 Linkthewindow MichaelRead Nubis Ottari Pdeq Sergeant William Holt 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

St. Iscariot versus Boxy

Over the edits to a group page that Boxy is not part of. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 01:27, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

From Talk:S.O.S., because I don't feel like repeating myself -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 01:34 21 December 2008 (BST)

---

None of the above signatures seem to be supporting the "strike", so they don't belong on the main page -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 01:08 21 December 2008 (BST)

Fact - Group page, you have no right to edit according to you whims. Fact - They haven't been removed already by the group, as you know under wiki tradition, silence implies consent. Fact - Take it to vandal banning, and watch yourself lose. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 01:10, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Fact, you yourself, being not a member of the "group", don't have the right to carry on abusive arguments on their main page. You take it to A/VB, and see how you go -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 01:12 21 December 2008 (BST)

Fact - The section implies that 'opinions' may be added and they have not already been removed by the group when they have been editing the page since. That implies consent. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 01:14, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

And your insistence that it's a group page implies much more strongly that it's asking for opinions from supporters of the general concept, no abusive commentary from all and sundry -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 01:23 21 December 2008 (BST)

That would be your opinion, the fact is that the page owners have allowed these comments and not already removed them, therefore, inaction implies consent. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 01:24, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Much more likely that they don't understand wiki policy in this regard, and don't want to get in trouble for removing others posts -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 01:28 21 December 2008 (BST)

Wouldn't the correct course of action been to ask them, rather than assume intent and unilaterally impose your will on the wiki? -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 01:31, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Given the way that it had turned into an abusive discussion, no, besides which, I've stopped taking out only the sigs now, and only the discussion, which obviously belongs on the talk page, and have already contacted the original author long ago -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 01:34 21 December 2008 (BST)

---

Note, by this point Boxy had reverted the page twice whilst this case had been open, displaying complete disregard for the established precedents of arbitration. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 01:37, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

I note that the only reason you brought this case was to get your version to be the one left on the page. You made no attempt to make your case here, you didn't even give a link to the page in question, instead leaving it up to me to bring the facts of the discussion here. As far as I'm concerned, there is no contention in an edit that removes continued and abusive discussion from someone's main page and places it on the talk page. It's pure common courteously -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 01:44 21 December 2008 (BST)

Hagnat vs Iscariot

I would like to open a case against Iscariot, on the basis that he is a total jackass against the administration staff for no good reason. I would like to put an end to his meaningless idiocy against the administration staff. --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{talk mod} 01:32, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

I accept this case and will represent myself. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 01:34, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Since you have a long history of refusing arbitrators, i invite you to name those whom you'd accept. --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{talk mod} 01:40, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Since you have a long history of lying, ignoring precedent and making shit up, I invite you to outline your case and what you're looking to achieve in a verdict (completely, you know how I hate loopholes) before I begin to consider arbitrators. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 01:47, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

This will be further explained once the arbitration process begins. Now, name people whom you'd accept. --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{talk mod} 01:50, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Now you know attempting to browbeat me won't work. This is highly relevant to my choice of arbitrator, if you are seeking me to make my sig pink in colour for 10 minutes I won't much care on my choice of arbitrator, if you are seeking something else that will influence my potential choices. I invite you to display good faith in the process by assisting me in this matter through the details I have requested. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 01:56, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

I'll offer to arbitrate this case, since I'm fairly new and should be mostly impartial. Disclaimer: This would be my first case. --Pestolence^(talk) 01:42, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

This case is completely fucking retarded, as by extension is Hangnut. He should know that you can't restrict people from bringing not-obviously frivolous cases up on administration pages. --HAHAHA DISREGARD THAT, I SUCK COCKS 04:56, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

I could swear Vista warned someone about that in the past.--Karek^maps?! 05:12, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Kristi of the Dead vs. Recruitment

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

Well, first off, you need someone to represent "Recruitment." Perhaps a discussion at the Recruitment talk page would be in order? Anyway, I'll post a note there, even though I think this is the wrong place. Linkthewindow  Talk  05:23, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Whoops, looks like there has been quite a heated discussion there for some time. Anyway, Kirsti, how are you supposed to challange, you know a page. Arbies are designed for user-user mediation, not when people get upset over the contents on a page (unless said upsetness causes an edit war.) Linkthewindow  Talk  05:31, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm charging the entire wiki that supports the use of the recruitment page as it is written now. The unfair treatment of groups based on a policy that is selectively enforced by the wiki at large is unfair and deserves a resolution.--Kristi of the Dead 06:04, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

You can't take the whole wiki to arbies, Kristi. Name the main ones enforcing this on the recruitment page (and they can choose one or more representative/s), pick an independent arbitrator, and then move on to making your cases -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 00:40 20 November 2008 (BST)

Iscariot is the do nothing in charge of that page. Good luck getting him to do anything.--Kristi of the Dead 03:24, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

This isn't exactly what I meant. Anyway, the question that needs to be addressed is where to draw the line on what is an individual group. The thing that's the major sticking point would probably be the fact that membership is interdependent in the DEM, the 3 character rule causes that and the secrecy of the group/s makes it very difficult to differentiate between them from the outside. That being said none of this would be an issue if the content rules were less rigid, there is no reason why the DEM shouldn't be able to include small ads for all of it's groups in it's recruitment ad but with the content limits now that is quite impossible. Maybe if we went back to an older system?--Karek^maps?! 06:53, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

We're looking to get the MCDU, and AH their own recruitment pages as well as any group that joins our organization from here on out. The point is either you enforce the rule fairly across the board with no more of this everyone is ok but the DEM crap or you let us have two new free pages 1 for AH and 1 for the MCDU (though in truth the made up problem of crowding on the recruitment page was designed to punish survivor groups like the DEM and the DHPD so I'd like to see it done away with entirely). By the letter of the rule there's plenty of organizations that should be forced to have one page but aren't this rule is selectively enforced and when it is enforced it is unfair and punishing to us. Because now when an organization joins the DEM they have to give up their ad. That's not fair and it's a penalty you've pushed on the DEM to the exclusion of all others here on the wiki. Also the 3 character rule has nothing to do with this...the DA has no alt rules at all and yet they're a ok to post as many recruitment ads as they want. And in fact I charge that it is the wiki that is responsible for much of the confusion with the DEM and its member groups. By forcing us all to advertise together you insinuate that we are not separate groups. It's easier for people to say that we aren't because of this unfair policy made for not so good faith reasons. --Kristi of the Dead 03:24, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't enforce the rules there at all, it's a user made and user moderated page. I'm trying to help you out here by proposing something I think would be a more than appropriate compromise and would actually lead to all of your member groups having their recruitment ads group together with each other inside of a larger ad. That being said, if the DA is being allowed to do this and you aren't then there certainly is something wrong with that.--Karek^maps?! 17:37, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry Karek I didn't mean to insinuate that you did run the page sorry for that. I'm sorta used to us arguing about things and had assumed your opinion to be one way when it was the the other. Look I'm just after a fair resolution to this situation. Something that Iscariot has been unwilling or unable to do for whatever reason. But as the rule stands now the DEM is being unfairly targeted with this rule to the exclusion of all others. And there are plenty of other organizations that need to be forced to do the same thing we are but aren't being forced to do such. Mostly as a result of the real reason the rule was written in the first place combined with Iscariots inability to separate his PK character from his Wiki persona that rules the recruitment page. I like your idea Karek...anything that is more fair than the current system would be appreciated. The entire rule is biased against the DEM as was its purpose. It's not being enforced on others it seems it was a special rule made up to punish groups that want to join the DEM. Which is unfair. I want it gone, modified, or apply to all other organizations in the game.--Kristi of the Dead 02:59, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Also, the alt rule is relevant only for the reason that it's a recruitment page, it would be foolish of you not to mention it considering that it would restrict whether or not some people could join the group at all. That makes it relevant but, just barely so. --Karek^maps?! 17:37, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

If they already have a DEM member in our group then they are already aware of the 3 alt rule and as such it doesn't really apply.--Kristi of the Dead 02:59, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

I've just noticed this case. My internets are broken at the moment so it'll be a while before I can properly begin it. However, as one of the two maintainers of the Recruitment page (the other having recently left the wiki) I will accept this case. I was going to recommend a friendly arbitration case to let a third party end the discussion, but since Kristi wants to get all legalistic and leave unfriendly messages on my talkpage, I will now take this case on in my usual wiki manner. I will represent the recruitment section and will participate fully in this debate on the following two conditions:

1. The DEM is named in this case in place of Kristi and we understand that the ruling will apply to all members of the DEM, all subgroups of the DEM and their members.
2. Arbitrator selection is put on hold until my interwebs are all fixed. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 10:48, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Pffft. You've been little but hostile since the moment this discussion began months ago. And your paragraph #1 is rather a transparent attempt to use the interrelation of some DEM groups -- which by Kristi's petition are not even subject to this case -- to make a case for disallowing what she is asking for. If your internet access is a problem, perhaps Whitehouse should represent Recruitment in a truly "friendly arbitration case". -- Atticus Rex ^{mfu pif} Δ 17:01, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

EDIT: Great. Whitehouse really is gone. -- Atticus Rex ^{mfu pif} Δ 17:05, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Wow surprise surprise Iscariot is out to do nothing yet again. How about while we're at it we vote this useless guy off the recruitment page entirely. You don't make the terms of the case Iscariot. In fact if you don't get off your ass we'll move on without you. I mean I've done nothing but ask you for help and in return I've gotten no response. I much prefer whitehouse to you as he actually does his job. If your internets is so spotty perhaps you should go back to being a normal user. In regards to you number 1 above This ruling should apply to the entire recruitment page not just to one ORGANIZATION and its member groups(ie not just the DEM). If it applies to the DEM then it should for fairness sake apply to all organizations such as the DA and others. That's the point no more of this "lets treat the DEM like crap because we can" stuff.--Kristi of the Dead 02:56, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

As it says above, Whitehouse has left the wiki. Any other people who would want to represent Recruitment in this case that you know of, Krisit? Linkthewindow  Talk  00:13, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

The reason I request that the DEM be named is for the same reason the Recruitment page is named, we do not want to be going through this process for every member of your group. Provided you agree to this, I will accept The Hierophant, Wan Yao or Suicidalangel as they are familiar with large groups and I consider them to be impartial. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 13:02, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

The Hierophant(Lord Moloch) is a lot of things, in this case impartial isn't one of them.--Karek^maps?! 13:05, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

I am willing to be the arbitatortot and/or person in charge of wishing death upon Iscariot. Seriously, fuck off and die. If I ever met your mother I'd punch her in the ovaries until they turned into dust so that she could never poison the world again with a failspawn such as yourself. You're an idiot and a failure at a human being. Do everyone around you a favor and choke to death. --Sonny Corleone ^{DORIS MSD pr0n} 17:42, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Meh. I'll arbitrate. I hardly ever touch the recruitment page and have nothing against both users (or pages/groups.) However, both users should be advised that this would be my first case, so yeah... Linkthewindow  Talk  00:13, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

This case piqued my curiosity. I sneak on over to the recruitment page every now and again, and would neutrally apply logic and reason to the users involved in this case. As Linkthewindow, both Iscariot and Kristi should be advised that this would be my first arbitration. Ottari ^{DA PDA NW} Read the Dispatch! 06:34, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

It looked like discussion died off here a while ago. Speak now or I shall archive it :P. Linkthewindow  Talk  11:43, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Discussion has not died, the case was merely dormant whilst my interwebs were dead. They have now been resurrected and the case can continue. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 13:02, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Thats fine. I'll inform Kristi. Linkthewindow  Talk  06:41, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

I'll do it, i'm sick of the sporadic edits to this page plaguing my watchlist.--xoxo 11:42, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

srsly, gtfo my watchlist. pick someone to arbies lolbutsrs.--xoxo 04:45, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

It looks like we are waiting for Kristi to return from her wikicoma. Linkthewindow  Talk  04:49, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Seriously Iscariot spends paragraphs dogging Karek for making constructive suggestions that might actually help but J3D gets call us a zerg army above and then continues to spam the *gasp* admin pages and not a peep. seriously nobody cares about your watchlist--Kristi of the Dead 06:29, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Bitter, bitter. You totally misinterpreted me. I was saying that making a rule linking recruitment and stats page together could be easily overcome by a zerg army. --xoxo 06:50, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

I love Karek's idea! It would work beutifully. And would be fair which is something that's been lacking in the wiki recruitment pages for the DEM for some time now. Seriously we bring a fair number of new players into the game and teach them how to play and try to make them part of the community. Which is hard to do since from our perspective for some time now the wiki has targeted us (as far as the recruitment goes) unfairly. What I want is a fair resolution that prevent "page maintainers" from using their own judgement as often and Karek's suggestion I think would do that. A fair resolution here would prolly make it easier for me to get more DEM members to be more active in the community here on the wiki too.--Kristi of the Dead 06:08, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Tell me Kristi, did you see the arbitrators and conditions I suggested and the reasoning for them, or was it all lost in Karek's superfluous paragraphs? -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 06:48, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

I didn't like any of them. And as I stated earlier all conditions should apply to all organization not the DEM specific. Which means if you don't like KotD vs Recruitment I would be in favore of meta organizations vs recruitment. This should not just apply to the DEM that's the point of the whole case. This rule and its selective enforcement needs to be done away with. either through taking away mod (or whatever it's called here) personal judgement in the case or doing away with the rule entirely.--Kristi of the Dead 07:36, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

It is reasonable for me to represent the Recruitment page as I am the most prolific maintainer of that page. You, however, cannot reasonably represent every metagroup in the game, particularly when you are at odds with several. The only metagroup you may represent is the DEM. I am merely asking you to represent those that you can so I do not have to go through all this again next week after you lose. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 07:41, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't just represent the DEM here to be sure. I represent all the groups affected by this poor rule that's currently in place. I can feel pretty safe to say I represent those just fine. This rule will not just affect the DEM any longer I'm tired of that as are hundreds of players. Further you don't represent everyone who was involved with the recruitment page either. I play the game and lead a LARGE meta group I think that's just about the same qualifications you have. --Kristi of the Dead 08:12, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure you do not speak for the PKA, and I'm damn sure you don't speak for the RRF. I can speak for the recruitment page due to the work I do there, not the entire wiki. You hold the chair of the DEM, you can speak for them, you hold no such position with the RRF, the PKA, the DA, or just about any other large group I can think of. You cannot suggest you represent such groups, and I will certainly not have you represent the RRF. Represent those of which you are able, do not drag others into your failure. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 08:22, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

How about I don't care what you want? Sound good? Great! How about you ask moloch what he thinks of me talking on behalf of the community that you lord over with your ineffectual meanderings and insults. I've had it up to my eyebrows with your do nothing attitude and it hurts the wiki tohave you in any way shape or form in charge of anything. You don't speak for the entire reqruitment page that's why I didn't mention you specifically. So why don't you wrap my failure into a little ball and shove it up your ass? eh?--Kristi of the Dead 09:02, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

We can take the RRF as a case in point if you wish, now I know Moloch asked me to sort the RRF's wiki pages. Now I assumed that meant maintain the RRF and represent them in wiki matters, but I could be wrong. I'll ask him to post here and state whether he wants my statement that you are never to represent the RRF in anything to stand, or whether he wants you to represent the horde in this matter. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 23:04, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

I never ever said the RRF I said the community which you yourself claim to be qualified to represent in this case. I'm here to tell you I'm just as qualified as you. Most especially to represent those abused by the very poor system you've kept in place here. Oh and again I simply no longer care what you think.--Kristi of the Dead 05:16, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

The simple fact is I'm am qualified to represent the arbitration page, people, including yourself, keep insisting that I run it, so I live with the burden. As proven below you do not represent all meta groups. If you wish to expand the case from the DEM, pleasehave the leaders of any other meta groups who you represent post confirming their approval here. Otherwise represent the only one you can, the DEM. Also, abused? Melodrama much? -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 05:32, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

The simple fact is that no matter what you say other groups will affected by what happens here. No matter how bad you want this to just apply to the DEM other groups and meta groups will be affected either positively or negatively no matter what you say about it. That's the simple fact. Another simple fact is that you are just the last person active on the page and you've never accepted any burden as proven by you lack of action on anything--Kristi of the Dead 05:54, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

To recap then; You proposed LordMoloch, Wanyao, and SA. SA is inactive, LordMoloch/TheHeirophant is leader of the RRF and one of the people who tends to refer to the DEM as a zerg group, and WanYao has already chosen a side above. You might want to work on a new list if you actually want to move the case along.--Karek^maps?! 06:56, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

That would be half of what I'm talking about, again your pointless graffiti all over this page has obscured the rest even from your eyes. Somehow I'm quite sure that Kristi knows who The Hierophant is, your attempt to influence this case by disparaging one of my potential arbitrators merely reinforces your neutrality in this matter.... -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 07:02, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

You'd be wrong I didn't know Hierophant was Moloch sorry.--Kristi of the Dead 07:36, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

In spite of Karek's attempts to sully my name, I am going to officially offer myself as an arbitrator. For the record: do I have an opinion on this case? Yeah, I do. Admitting that is probably more honest than most would-be arbitrators... However, since I haven't heard the full arguments of either side, my opinions are anything but set in stone and my decision will impartial based upon the merits of the case. Now... assuming I'm even remotely acceptable to both parties, let me make a few things clear about my approach.

• Kristi - in this case you cannot "represent" any and all groups or organisations whom you think are treated similarly to the DEM. That isn't how arbies work. But if a group adds themselves to the case voluntarily, allowing you to "represent" them -- then, yes, that's fine. However, that being said, I expect this case will set a precedent for further similar disputes.
• karek - I have no problem with you attempting to find a solution to this dispute, thereby making the arby superfluous. I encourage it, in fact. But, unless you're named a part of this arbitration case, I ask you to do so elsewhere.
• Iscariot has taken it upon himself to "maintain" the Recruitment page -- and from what I can tell it's he who is not permitting the DEM groups to be listed seperately. Therefore this cause really ought to be KotD vs. Iscariot re: Recruitment. But all said and done this is unimportant.

Anyway... if you reject me as arbitrstor... then just ignore this post and move along... :) "Character assassination" is pointless at this juncture, a simple Yes or No will suffice. That's all. --WanYao 22:30, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Here's the thing Iscariot didn't write the rule he's just enforcing it. This rule was done a long time ago it's not iscariot's fault the rule sucks. So what would be the point in arbying iscariot? I mean it doesn't make sense. The people who wrote it aren't active anylonger so you can't go after them either. The point is that I don't want this to affect just the DEM. I want to make sure that when another wiki person gets into power here who has an axe to grind with a group (any group) they won't be able to do to them what's been done to us. So this buisness of naming the DEM only is silly also.

• Further what Karek is doing is appreciated by me personally. This whole wiki crap is confusing and unintuitive and if he wants to do what iscariot should have gotten off his ass and done in the first place then I welcome it. I mean I practically begged iscariot to help me come up with a solution to this problem before this happened and his response was find another page to post your recruitments on.

• In the history of the rule iscariot hasn't been the only one to enforce it. So I mean by your definition I could name anyone that had anything to do with the situation and exclude him entirely. But it looks like that's not the case. I mean iscariot certainly can't speak for everyone that's enforced this rule over the time it's been in effect, nor does he speak for the people that wrote the rule in the first place. That seems to be about the same qualifications I have to speak for the community.

Finally while I do like you Wan I don't think you can be impartial when it comes to this situation. In fact it really is hard for me to trust any wiki regular when it comes to this place. I have no idea of your history on this wiki. And from your comments earlier I'm not entirely sure you're unbiased against my case. So I'd have to say no. sorry.--Kristi of the Dead 05:16, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Even though others have said that Wan has already taken a side, that being against me, I still respect his judgement and impartiality and would accept him to arbitrate in this matter. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 23:04, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Really? I feel the opposite. I kinda feel like he's on your side--Kristi of the Dead 05:16, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Because my name and that of the horde which I lead have been frequently dragged into this I'm going to post some things.

1. I am the political voice of the Ridleybank Resistance Front. If you wish to know our stance on something, ask me. I may give you an immediate answer; I may put it to my War Council and respond later; I may choose not to answer. Whichever response you get can be considered the official stance of the RRF. There are those amongst you who will interpret the above as a slight against the plaintiff in this case, but it is not. It is a message to anyone who assumes that they know or are qualified to speak for the will of the RRF without consulting us first, and that includes Iscariot.

2. The Ridleybank Resistance Front does not object to the rule in question.

3. The Ridleybank Resistance Front does not care about the rule in question. If it stays or goes, I will remain personally indifferent.

4. I will not act as Arbitrator in this, or any other case. I have more valuable and enjoyable things to do with my time than to spend the festive season refereeing an internet pissing contest.

5. Anyone who assumes that I would be automatically biased against Kristi of the Dead and/or the DEM in any case does not know me well at all. I'll go so far as to say that she herself knows me far better than to believe that.

I could go on, but I do not wish to. Leave me out of this shit.--Papa Moloch 03:09, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

I do konw you better than that :). In fact it's too bad you don't want to be involved cause I think you'd be ideal as a mediator in this situation. As I trust you to be fair and impartial.--Kristi of the Dead 05:24, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

As one of my arbitrators is inactive, one has declined, and you have refused the other, would you care to name some potential arbitrators. Be aware I will not accept anyone with a DEM alt, past or present, I assume you can see the conflict of interest there. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 05:32, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

I think Akule, Animesucks, Cheeseman, and Karek fit the description. But don't worry I have no doubt you'll disqualify all of those for some reason.--Kristi of the Dead 06:02, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

I thought Akule was inactive. Anime and I don't get on, so I'd be unconvinced of his impartiality. Cheese and Karek are sysops, I will not accept sysops for any arbitration case I'm involved in, I'm sorry I thought you knew this, otherwise I'd have made it clear in my last post. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 06:10, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Just for future refrence I think this wiki sucks. It's bad for the community. Everyone that comes to brainstock hear's from me how they should avoid this place at all costs. So just so you're aware I don't have a history here, I don't know anybody and I certainly don't know your particular tastes in regard to arbitration as this is the first time I've ever been involved in one. So you've shot down my four suggestions it's your turn again to suggest someone for me to not accept.--Kristi of the Dead 06:21, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Can we just write and vote on a new policy? That way, Iscariot could be happy enforcing the nitpick details of the new and fairer one, allinces wouldn't be penalized (hopefully) by the new and fairer one, and we could all live happily ever after, The End. I don't see how anyone can fault Iscariot for enforcing the current policy...it's the policy that's the problem, not him (well...excecpt insofar as he doesn't seem to WANT the policy changed, and has been inordinately hostile to any suggestion that it might be flawed). Yay for Karek...I like his suggestion, too. Let's vote, or reach a consensus, or whatever it takes to get a new and fairer policy implemented, and get this over with, shall we? --Jen 17:17, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

There is no policy. This isn't a matter for official policy: in effect, it's an edit war and that's why it's in Arbitration.... However, seeing as this case has garnered so much attention, why don't we re-open the discussion on the Recruitment page itself? And try to come to a consensus? I've said before that karek's "interventions", and any attempts to broker a solution to this conflict, is the best thing to do. Now if Iscariot is going to unilaterally keep the DEM down to one entry, and Kristi isn't going to budge, either -- then we'll end up here again. But we could at least try?? I merely think it ought to be somewhere else, not here. But if people wanna do it here, I can't stop you's... --WanYao 20:54, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Large Groups or Organizations with significant subgroups are limited to one ad. This includes groups such as the DHPD and the Department of Emergency Management, they may use their ad to direct players to the separate sub-groups.

This is what's causing the problem. How do I make a motion that we change this stupid rule? It needs to be changed, because right now, it's unfairly singling out the DEM alliance, and prohibiting all of its groups from advertising. It should either apply to ALL alliances of groups (the DA, the NMC, and the SWA), or leave the DEM out of it, and only apply to groups like the Imperium, the DHPD, and the RRF. All of which have the same group tag, something that is NOT true of the member groups of the DEM. I seriously don't see WHY it should be a problem to change the rule to something like Karek suggested. Change the rule, and Iscariot can't legally take the DEM off (and he won't, because he's a stickler for rules), and everyone's happy. Except maybe Iscariot. End of story. It makes perfect sense that Kristi's suing the recruitment page, actually, because it's those rules on it that are causing the problem, and no one seems to be interested in fixing them. --Jen 21:26, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

The Recruitment page is a community page. Doesn't belong to any single person, and has no policy, therefore the only official rules are those that govern the wiki in general found in the policy documents. A community pages own set of guidelines are therefore laid down by the community upon consensus, consensus is decided by vote. Take this back to the Recruitment page and start a vote. If I missed some rule somewhere that invalidates the above, please correct me. - User:Whitehouse 22:26, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

You're spot on, Whitehouse -- with one little problem. We normally don't vote on stuff like the Large Group practice. It's done by consensus. And when consensus fails, then we hit Arbies.... However, straw polls can be part of the consensus process. So let's have a straw vote... --WanYao 22:34, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Arbitration Cases in Progress

There are currently no cases in Progress

Archives

• List of Arbitration Cases