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)

:'(

No one ever picks me to arbitrate. Makes me want to cry...-- dǝǝɥs oʇ ɯɐds: sʎɐʍ1ɐ! 21:34, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

I tried to once, check the Karek vs Nick and Jed case. Unfortunately nick vetoed :( --xoxo 07:02, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

No one picks me either. I love Arby's. --Sonny Corleone ^{DORIS MSD pr0n} 07:09, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I know. But I never get to aribitrate. And the difference between me and you Sonny, is I'm trustable in just about ALL cases. :) -- dǝǝɥs oʇ ɯɐds: sʎɐʍ1ɐ! 12:44, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

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...--xoxo 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. -- Cheese 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)

Archive

The first archive seems to be missing content.--Karek^maps?! 10:58, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Strangely, the code is visible with View Source. --Toejam 18:28, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

This has happened with my first talk page archive too. It's really weird... --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{[cloned] [mod]} 17:12, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

If you reupload the code it should fix it.--Karek^maps?! 21:09, 28 January 2008 (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. --Rosslessness^{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?--xoxo 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.--xoxo 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. --  AHLGTG 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. --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 19:39, 23 May 2008 (BST)

Alright, makes sense. People ignore the list anyways. --  AHLGTG 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.--xoxo 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. --  AHLGTG 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? --Rosslessness^{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.--xoxo 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

Everyone on this wiki versus Iscariot

For being a cuntbagrashshitbitch.--xoxo 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!--xoxo 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?--xoxo 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? --Rosslessness^{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. -- Cheese 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...--xoxo 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)

I'd be willing to arbitrate. I've never posted on a suburb page and don't intend to. --DarkStar (talk | contribs | logs | block | IP Check | vndl data | discuss) 09:36, 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. --Rosslessness^{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... --  AHLGTG 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.--xoxo 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!--xoxo 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?--xoxo 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)

Well, I've never arbied before and this seems like a good case to start on :P ----Ash  ^{|  T  |  яя  |} 22:34, 14 October 2008 (BST)

Iscariot versus Everyone on this wiki

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

You are an idiot. -- Cheese 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...--xoxo 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'd be willing to arbitrate. I've never posted on a suburb page and don't intend to. --DarkStar (talk | contribs | logs | block | IP Check | vndl data | discuss) 09:36, 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. --Rosslessness^{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.--xoxo 12:56, 6 July 2008 (BST)

On a serious note, I wouldn't mind arbitrating thsi case. I've never posted and/or took part in anything 'suburb-page-admin' related within the wiki itself and I know the policies that this wiki has in place. I'd mentioned that I'd never arbied on this wiki before, but that doesn't mean that I don't have experience dealing with issues. ----Ash  ^{|  T  |  яя  |} 22:39, 14 October 2008 (BST)

You are aware this was 3 months ago, right?--xoxo 22:42, 14 October 2008 (BST)

Nope, not really. I guess I should've read a time stamp, at least.

Well, now I've made a fool of myself I may as well leave it on ._. ----Ash  ^{|  T  |  яя  |} 22:43, 14 October 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)

Have you tried to seek a non-arby means to end this first. By your description, this is borderline vandalism. Linkthewindow  Talk  09:35, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

The edits seem to be long gone, so it's a bit late to do anything about it know. Such behaviour needs to be sorted out in vandal banning -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 09:14 21 November 2008 (BST)

Thanks for signing my comment Boxy. Is there a time limit on how long an instance has to pass before it can no longer be taken to A/VB? Linkthewindow  Talk  09:35, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

No, not really, but it would have to be pretty serious to bother months later. The main problem is that the page revisions (diff comparisons) in question here seem to have happened before the last history purge, making them inaccessible, and proving such a case extremely difficult -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 09:56 21 November 2008 (BST)

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)

Feh, this old bullshit subject... God, when will the BS crowd give their inane politicking a rest??? Well... anyway... Just because groups share a forum doesn't make them all the same group. However, when groups are all surbordinate to one leader and/or executive "board of directors"... well... For example, unlike the DEM, there is no "president" of all Beerhah: it's just a board which includes several completely independent subgroups. There is no "president" of Barhah.com, either, just a dude who runs the board. Sorta. So those comparisons are totally invalid. However, the Dulston Alliance is a pretty tightly knit organisation as far as I can tell... so that comparison is more valid. But, of course... you know... someone has to claim the DEM are fascists... and someone else has to play the foil and claim they're persecuted... GET THEE TO AN ARBITRATION CASE! ***YAWN**** --WanYao 11:26, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Actually, me being... well... me.... put that aside for a moment ;) ... I never bother with the recruitment page... Has there actually been an edit war over this? If not, there is no cause for an Arby case. Just add AH and MCDU to the list as seperate groups. Then, and only then -- if there's an edit war over the issue -- should this come to Arbies. Otherwise, you're wasting our time. That's my two bits worth. --WanYao 11:38, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

The answer seems more straight forward. The recruitment section is meant to work with the Stats.html page, the rule should be if you show up there you can show up here.--Karek^maps?! 19:28, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

My understanding is that they are going to arbies over a long-standing dispute about this issue and to prevent an edit war. Linkthewindow  Talk  08:08, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

zerg army anyone?--xoxo 01:01, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, karek, but I can't see any direct connection between the stats page and the recruitment page. Maybe that's because there isn't any! The stats page links you the actual group page. It has nothing whatsoever to do with the Recruitment page. However, when I click on MPD and MFD, I see two pages both of which say in a very prominent place: "Branch of the DEM". Make what you want of that... --WanYao 01:42, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

That's just foolish, of course there is a connection, the game recognizes them as seprate notable groups and presents them to the players as such. Stats.html is an automated recruitment tool built before the Recruitment addition and it originally served that purpose. It's the original recruitment page.--Karek^maps?! 02:47, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

That may possibly have been true then. This, however, is now. There is no connection between the recruitment page and the stats page. As for the "Branch of the DEM" blurb on the wikis, etc., I'm merely presenting a fact. What you do with that fact -- including ignore it as unimportant and irrelevant -- is your decision. --WanYao 07:29, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

There was been a LONG discussion over at Brainstock a while back about revamping some of the terminology, to make it clearer that the DEM groups see themselves as independent entities, and part of an alliance. Due to the wiki averseness of most of the DEM members, their pages ARE rather outdated, and haven't been updated in a while. Heck, I'd tweak their pages for them, if they'd let me, but I dunno how well that would go over. ;) --Jen 15:14, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

The army, navy and airforce are all seperate branches of a nations armed forces (arguably so is the police!) but each recruits seperatly for very good reasons. I think Karek has hit upon a very simple and clear solution so why not run with it? That is a genuine question by the way so please feel free to answer it...--Honestmistake 09:37, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

1. Create 10 dummy characters.
2. Login once a week with them.
3. ???
4. Profit Recruit!

--Midianian ^{Big Brother Diary Room: [511,12]} 11:27, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

And that is different from the current situation how? Any idiot can already create dummy accounts and a group... hell if no-one checks the stats for group size you can skip the dummy account part and just go straight for the recruiting. The main problem i can see is that if a group is too small to appear on stats it will be barred from recruiting!--Honestmistake 16:31, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

So, what on earth would implementing that limit solve? Other than cutting down the number of ads by ~30%... --Midianian ^{Big Brother Diary Room: [517,12]} 17:36, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

It settles this ridiculous argument of what is and isn't a group by letting the game engine itself decide which ones are.--Karek^maps?! 02:45, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Even if it wasn't ridiculously easy to get past that limitation if you're willing to cheat, it still wouldn't be worth banning small groups off the page. These are the groups that need Recruitment the most. Oh, and that 30% wasn't a guess. Out of the 35 groups currently recruiting in Malton (or at least when I checked them yesterday), 11 wouldn't be able to do it anymore. --Midianian ^{Big Brother Diary Room: [511,13]} 11:27, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

It's really not our place to proclaim who is cheating and who isn't, that belongs in the realm of forums and groups not the wiki which has to be applied equally to everyone. If someone is zerging to make a group it's not our place to declaim zerging as illegitimate on the wiki, regardless of our personal views on the matter we have to be fair first. I'm not saying ban small groups from the page so much as that we shouldn't ban groups the game recognizes as groups from recruiting, for small groups it wouldn't change the status quo.--Karek^maps?!

So, what you're aiming at is that a group can recruit if they use their own group tags in their profiles? Why not just say it like that and leave the stats page out of this? --Midianian ^{Big Brother Diary Room: [500,14]} 00:41, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

The issue is that DEM "subgroups" that are on the stats page aren't being allowed to have recruitment ads because of a rule added specifically to prevent them from having them. Them being on the stats page lends itself to my point, that the group recognizes them as differing individual groups and as such the wiki shouldn't treat them differently than the game does because they happen to share a similar goal. It's much equivalent to if we banned all members of !zanbah or The Big Bashes from having an ad while those things were active, at least from the standpoint of how the wiki treats them it is.--Karek^maps?! 03:43, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't need a recap, I do follow things on the wiki.

Requiring them to be on the stats page is still only a round-about way of requiring that they have their own group tags in their profiles. Yes, being on the stats page could be one way to prove that, but it shouldn't be the only one (you know, like directly providing some profiles?), and thus it shouldn't be the actual rule. --Midianian ^{Big Brother Diary Room: [511,14]} 11:54, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Karek 'recapping' things is all well and good, but he's recapping the wrong thing. That's not the reason this has come to arbitration at all. You think he'd know that since he's trying to hijack the case. If he continues to go over ground that's already been covered without doing his research then I'm going to take everything from this page not from the participants (of which he is not currently one) and the volunteer arbitrators and stick this rubbish on the talk page. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 14:03, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Requiring a group to be on the stats page to be able to recruit is a completely fucking retarded -- and utterly biased and discriminatory -- idea. Basically you're killing any new group's chance to recruit and develop outside the big, independent metagame forums... Which, even the bigger ones, are mostly closed cliques, anyeay. Wow, what a great idea!! --WanYao 06:48, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Fail.--Karek^maps?! 10:25, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Now who's being "argumentative" for it's own sake, hmmmmmn? I don't read everyone's talk pages: I read what's posted here. **yawn** --WanYao 06:46, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

And thus why I linked it, or is not repeating myself frequently being argumentative too?--Karek^maps?! 06:53, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

You see, if any other user engaged in this kind of trolling argument on an open arbitration case they'd be warned and told to take it to the talk page to stop shitting up the admin pages. Does anyone think that'll happen to Karek? Does anyone think he should know better? -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 11:32, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm trying to sort out a solution that makes sense as opposed to helping some vendetta you two have between each other. This isn't an arbitration case at this point and regardless it will not be solved here so I'm discussing a way to sort it out. You want me to be a third party, fine, I'll join the arbitration case on Kirsti's side if she'll have me simply because you don't seem to want to solve anything, you just want to enforce a rule that makes little sense and isn't being applied equally to every group.--Karek^maps?! 22:13, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

No. You've just explained, in your own words, that you're trying to arbitrate this case ("I'm trying to sort out a solution"). But you have not been accepted as an arbitrator, so butt out, karek. Actually, you can do this, and damn it I encourage you to try to negotiate a solution! But that belongs on Talk pages, not on admin pages. I have no axes to grind with either of you: I'm calling this as I see it... And, karek, if you keep shitting up this admin page by tryimg to be an unappointed abritrator, I'll be consulting whether your actions are vandalism. And Iscariot... quit being trollish. --WanYao 06:56, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

You're just being argumentative now. I'm not arbitrating, I'm trying to do something that should have been done before the case got to arbitration. In the process I'm also arguing for what I believe would be the best solution here and expressing my views on the case, which has led to me taking a side. Trying to settle a dispute isn't arbitration, it's mediation, arbitrators on UDWiki don't seem to know how to do that and you don't seem to know the difference between an interested party who happens to want to actually use the arbitration system as it is meant to be used as an intrested party in the manner they are meant to use it, I have no intention of trying to inforce some draconian ruling in this case, although technically I do/did have the means to try if I actually wished to start undoing the good precedents we/I've set regarding this page's treatment. The difference between arbitrating and starting/moving the discussion are night and day. --Karek^maps?! 10:38, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

No, I'm not merely being "argumentative", karek. You've missed my point. Which was that this discussion ought to be taking place on user and Recruitment talk pages. As it is, Iscariot actually has a point that your actions border on interfering in a non-neutral manner an abritration case which you're not a part of. It's not what you're doing -- which is laubible -- but how and where you're doing it -- which doesn't come across. to some, as "benevolently" as you might hope. Dig? --WanYao 06:39, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

That has long since ceased to be a concern of mine on this wiki, people will interpret things how their bias lets them. At this point you're only point is some trumped up claim of my arbitrating as an attempt to invalidate my participation without actually invalidating my points, it doesn't matter that the person who filed this case views what I added as an ideal result to solve the problem that led to this case on their part, and it doesn't matter that the best one to argue for something that came from my head is me. So yes, you're being argumentative and are ill informed, the discussion came here because it was blocked from going anywhere on the user and recruitment pages.--Karek^maps?! 06:49, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

It's simple, karek: what part of "take it to talk pages" don't you understand? And, as for all the name calling etc. you're engaging in... I'll leave it to others to read the thread and decide for themselves who's being "agrumentative", presumptuous and thoroughly condescending here... You just said that you don't care what others think of you. Exactly. **yawn** --WanYao 07:03, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Where is Kirsti anyway? We can't have an arbiration case without someone accusing. Linkthewindow  Talk  11:39, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

I was absent from this case for a period of time due to connection difficulties, I am more than willing to give my opponent the same grace that was given to me in order to resolve this matter. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 12:01, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Point taken. Anyone know of an alternate way to contact her. It appears she has been in a wiki-coma, but she might still be active on Brainstock. Linkthewindow  Talk  20:33, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

She's quite active on Brainstock. And I don't blame her for going into a wiki coma.

Also, I support Karek's proposal. If a group shows up on the stats page, they should be allowed to recruit. (Without it implying the vice versa...if a groups DOESN'T show up, they SHOULDN'T be allowed to recruit). Alternatively, go with "if a group has different tags in their profile from another group, and has a separate wiki page (not a sub-page), it's a separate group, and should be allowed to recruit independently." It makes more sense than the current rule, which IS being applied differently to different alliances of groups, and which has been unfairly singling out and penalizing the DEM for a long time. (The SWA, DA, and NMC have all been allowed to recruit separately, though they are part of larger alliances. The DHPD, Imperium, and RRF (all of which have been presented as groups that could start making separate advertisements, once the DEM is allowed to make separate advertisements, all have a single group tag. And the DHPD also has subpages, not independent group pages)).--Jen 15:05, 14 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)

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)

I wouldn't be so sure, she doesn't use the wiki much and I'm not going to give you the opportunity to use that lack against her by catchin her uninformed. You've proposed no other arbitrators on this page, you haven't even expressed an opinion on the volunteers just on how much you dislike me adding anything.--Karek^maps?! 07:13, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Your lack of reading comprehension astounds me. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 07:18, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

However, in the interest of removing excuses I'll start moving all junk not immediately related to who the arbitrator will be to the talk page. Happy?--Karek^maps?! 07:16, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Certainly not, you are already aware (and have always been) that you are in error. The fact that the other sysops would never rule against one of their own does not change the fact that had anyone else pulled the shit you have on this page they'd be escalated immediately. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 07:18, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Hagnat v Iscariot

This looks to be essentially vandalism, it's no different than spamming A/VB to try and get a user punished or adding someone else's pages to A/D,A/SD,A/P because you don't like them. Second opinions from the peanut gallery? Attempt to abuse the system or just the biggest case of idiocy from a user we've had in a long while?--Karek^maps?! 04:37, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

You don't get punished for trying to get someone A/VBed if there is a hint of truth in what you are saying. And i think this is completely different to A/SDing someone elses pages, that is straight forward vandalism. This is meh, if they wanna do it that's their call. Doesn't cause anyone else any trouble.--xoxo 04:47, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

This causes trouble for everyone and is barred by precedent in the past; we don't handle ridiculous cases that exceed the limitations of Arbitration. This case is opposite to everything arbitration exists for and is being made for what is obviously an attempt to garner a wikigate style ruling. That's about as bad faith as you can get without banning outright and is harassment through the wiki system, much like the examples provided.--Karek^maps?! 05:09, 19 December 2008 (UTC)