UDWiki talk:Administration/Arbitration

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

General Discussion

Do you like prunes?

I don't. But I do like to prune things occasionally. So, I'm wondering if anyone will mind if I remove a few names off the arbitrator list. Not like some mass raepage, just people who haven't made more than an edit or two in the past month or so, and leaving a snippet about it on their talk. Then I'll maintain the list and go about this the same as described. Sound good? Questions, comments, concerns, screams for me not to do it?-- dǝǝɥs oʇ ɯɐds: sʎɐʍ1ɐ! 21:50, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

One edit in the past two months should be enough for a user to mantain its name in the list. --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{talk mod} 21:54, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, that's fine. Other people have used similar edits previously. Linkthewindow  Talk  21:57, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

And done. I'll be checking back every month to maintain the list.-- dǝǝɥs oʇ ɯɐds: sʎɐʍ1ɐ! 20:07, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Discussion of Arbitration Cases

UBCS vs Umbrela

Right, UBCS requested this arbitration, accordingly the community assumes that they will participate and represent themselves. One question only is currently relevant, will Umbrella participate in this arbitration and represent themselves? This question requires a yes or no answer from Umbrella regarding their participation according to the statues set out in the arbitration precedents. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 02:09, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Ok I am confused. Didn't the UBCS and Umbrella Corporation agree to disagree by having their own pages for this war, because I am pretty sure that's what I was trying to put across. No I am not thinking Arbi's, things are fine the way they are now and should be left at that.President Jackson 02:52, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

You aren't following, your 'agreement' with UBCS means precisely dick now. UBCS brought this case, it implies that they are unhappy with how the current arrangement is progressing. Therefore, as it has been brought, this is now an arbitration case, if you choose not to represent yourself, a representative will be chosen for you and the arbitration will progress and you will be bound by that result. I personally couldn't give a shit about whatever agreement the pair of you have, you are both filling up my admin pages with your drama and if I can I'll end it here and now. Therefore, under the Arbitrations Guidelines that I have explained to you, the precedent you can read from past cases and the guidelines linked from this page; Will Umbrella represent themselves in this case aginst UBCS? -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 03:04, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

YOUR ADMIN PAGES ? Who died and put you in charge ? --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{talk mod} 03:11, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

They are mine as I'm a member of this community, they are my administration pages in place to allow maintenance and smooth progression of the community as much as they are any other community member's. Surely you are not suggesting that admin pages = power? For surely that would be the incorrect tack to take by a supposed trusted user who is supposed to know and serve the wishes of this community as expressed by their hard voted policy. No-one died and put me in charge, I wouldn't want to be 'in charge' as I understand that it is the wishes of the community that would be prevalent. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 03:17, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

So ifr the community said STFU, Iscariot, you would? oh please... Conndraka^{mod TAZM CFT} 03:23, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Define community, give me a number. Because I will if you'll demote yourself if I can get the same number. Want to see who the community really supports? Without your DHPD zergs of course.... -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 03:32, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Leave it to Iscariot to start a fight with a sysop in a page that has nothing to do with anything.--SirArgo ^Talk 03:37, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Me? You'll notice I point out to the users involved in this case the precedents regarding arbitration. It is a sysop that begins this confrontation, with no prior involvement in attempting to reduce the conflict in the community two sysops intentionally engage my comments to escalate the situation without providing aid to the case in hand. Who's acting in bad faith again? Given that, what's your interest here? Have you volunteered as arbitrator? Have you researched this conflict? Have you given your opinion on it to the participants? Have you tried to assist them by explaining the page statutes? No, you haven't. You are the person who I first encountered trying to unsuccessfully create drama for me regarding my signature. Your bias is clear, kindly clear these pages so that the users that this page is here for can resolve their conflict. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 03:47, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I HAVE offered to be arbitrator and I DID research this conflict. I have read over the original case quite a few times. In fact, I urged in the creation of this arbitration case to avoid an edit war! See here. Maybe if you had done YOUR research properly you would have seen that.

And as for your signature once again I WOULD HAVE DONE THAT FOR ANYONE WHO WAS USING A BLINKING SIGNATURE> Until yours, I have never seen someone who had one! And as YOU admitted, it is just to piss people off.--SirArgo ^Talk 03:52, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

	Oh Snap!
	Someone just got served!

--People's Commissar Hagnat ^{talk mod} 03:58, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Anyone mind if I move the above to the talk page? It's irrelevant to the arbitration. Linkthewindow  Talk  04:02, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Be my guest.--SirArgo ^Talk 04:03, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Excuse me, I invite you to show me the exact edit where I state my signature is there "just to piss people off". This you have clearly claimed in an attempt to libel me and besmirch my image in this community. SHOW ME THE EDIT WHERE I SAY MY SIGNATURE IS THERE SOLELY TO "PISS PEOPLE OFF". You cannot, your attempt to distort the truth is obvious for all to see. The purpose of my signature is to advertise the Mall Tour 2009 in the most effective way possible. There is no deep dark motive regardless of your baseless belief. You are attempting to libel not only myself, but also the group I advertise. In this you will fail, the community sees clearly. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 04:05, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Also I contest this being moved to the talk page as I can demonstrate through arbitration by a third party how this is relevant to the case in hand. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 04:05, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

How come you dicking around in the case is relevant to the case ? LOL. --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{talk mod} 04:08, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Its interesting that you throw around the term DHPD Zerg when the only issue of the DHPD ever zerging was about 7 mos before you supposedly started playing Urbandead. Now some things are starting to click with some past issues, And I'm beginning to think that there is something that we've been missing. A Hatred of the sysop team... Attacks of incompetence against the oldest members of the team... Sir... I beleive you may be a banned user. makes sense now to prove it. But not here. Conndraka^{mod TAZM CFT} 04:06, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Oh shit Iscariot What the fuck is this?. At the bottom you state "...poor form, but nothing illegal or anything they can do about it" in regards to having a blinking signature. You basically said "it's not encouraged because it's annoying, but fuck them because it's not illegal!". And BTW, I am NOT bringing Mall Tour '09 down with you. I support THEM fully! So please, stop making these false accusation against me.--SirArgo ^Talk 04:11, 11 January 2009 (UTC)