UDWiki:Administration/Arbitration

From The Urban Dead Wiki
Jump to navigationJump to search

Template:Moderationnav

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

Arbitration Cases Currently Under Consideration

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.


St. Iscariot, Wiki Martyr and Mall Tour 2009 versus User:Sgt_Raiden

Given the incompetence of the sysop team in ruling a vandalism case correctly, St. Iscariot, Wiki Martyr, and The Mall Tour 2009 seek to prevent the user known as Sgt Raiden from making any further edits on this wiki concerning the Mall Tour 2009. I will accept User:Johnny Bass, User:Dr Cory Bjornson and User:Fifth Element as arbitrators. -- To know the face of God is to know madness....Praise knowledge! Mischief! Mayhem! The Rogues Gallery!. <== DDR Approved Editor 05:10, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Call me stupid, but aren't Johnny and Fifth Element both working with the Mall Tour, and since the Mall Tour is named in this case... Linkthewindow  Talk  05:28, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
OK, you're stupid. -- To know the face of God is to know madness....Praise knowledge! Mischief! Mayhem! The Rogues Gallery!. <== DDR Approved Editor 05:31, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I am not part of this case. Wiki Martyr 06:46, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

And there is no user named St. Iscariot. If there was we would permaban him as a sock puppet account made to mock. ... like you were.--– Nubis NWO 17:10, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
Fixed in accordance with the users wishes. Iscariot, if you wish to take me to A/VB, feel free. I am not an alt and I am eager for you to make an arse of yourself. Liberty 09:22, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
Fiexed correctly, a user may be known as whatever they wish, see User:Krazy Monkey, just because someone edits in bad faith does not limit their usage of a given moniker. You'll notice that I'm the only one that it links to as well. -- To know the face of God is to know madness....Praise knowledge! Mischief! Mayhem! The Rogues Gallery!. <== DDR Approved Editor 16:28, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
You can not call yourself Saint Iscariot any more than Sgt. Raiden could make a case against "Iscariot the Asshole that needs to shut the Fuck Up and give it a Rest". So, shut the fuck up and give it a rest.--– Nubis NWO 17:10, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
Calling himself what he wants is very different from calling someone else an asshole. Cheese (aka User:Krazy Monkey) has been involved in a couple of cases as only “Cheese”, which is much further from his real username than St. Iscariot is from Iscariot's. Not to mention that there already exists a case involving a St. Iscariot. So, why don't you give it a rest. Letting him call himself St. Iscariot isn't going to kill you. Or anyone else, for that matter. --Midianian|T|DS|C:RCS| 17:40, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
Also, in the Archives, Cheese's first case does refer to him as Cheese AKA Krazy Monkey and Micheal Read is referred to as SexyLegsRead. --– Nubis NWO 17:19, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
Precedent -- To know the face of God is to know madness....Praise knowledge! Mischief! Mayhem! The Rogues Gallery!. <== DDR Approved Editor 17:35, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
I r not newb. =/ Lrn to indent. -- Cheese 17:38, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

LOL, quite a case to bring against a wiki newbie... seeking to forbid them from commenting on one of the major current events in the game, and giving them a list of arbitrators to pick from, all of whom are Mall Tourists. Noice -- boxy talkteh rulz 10:12 15 January 2009 (BST)

You could have handed out a warning and reverted the contentious edit, and all of this would have been avoided, the warning itself would have been struck before the end of the Mall Tour 2009 given his rate of contributions. However, you didn't, and stated clearly that it was a matter for arbitration. You're always going on about how I don't follow correct procedure, well I did what you told me to do.... -- To know the face of God is to know madness....Praise knowledge! Mischief! Mayhem! The Rogues Gallery!. <== DDR Approved Editor 16:28, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
So much for the user who claims its the sysops fault that users are being driven away from the wiki. --People's Commissar Hagnat talk mod 10:26, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
I reject you as a potential arbitrator. According to your own badly crafted guidelines, please refrain from posting on the main page of this case again. Take it to the talk page, I'm sure someone will read what you have to say. -- To know the face of God is to know madness....Praise knowledge! Mischief! Mayhem! The Rogues Gallery!. <== DDR Approved Editor 16:28, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I offer to arbitrate. --Pestolence(talk) 21:49, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

How about before this turns into a totally irrelevant and bitter flame war, someone gets Sgt. Raiden to actually respond and accept or reject this case?--SirArgo Talk 21:52, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

He's been notified on his talk page already. (And I don't believe you can reject a case.) --Pestolence(talk) 21:57, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
I don't think thats actually ever been tried, however, i think that rejecting (or rather refusing to take part) would be a valid response given that arbitration is by definition a process involving 2 parties agreeing to accept the input of a nuetral 3rd! In any event he can just refuse all arbitration until the case collapses... It's a shit way to do it; and should not really be allowed; but it is a tried and tested way to fuck with the system!--Honestmistake 00:05, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

What are the edits which have brought this case forth? All I can see is someone posting POV stuff. While I'm sure that Sgt Raiden needs a lesson on keeping his posts in an netural POV on suburb pages and what not, I don't see any reason in his edits for an arbitration case, let alone you trying to resolve the issue by you talking to him. As of such, unless you give me a really good reason not to archive this case, this case will be removed within the next few days. - Jedaz - 00:37/16/01/2009

Arbitration Cases in Progress

Umbrella Biohazard Containment Service vs Umbrella Corporation

Involved Users Umbrella Biohazard Containment Service, Umbrella Corporation
Arbitrator Cheese
Created 23:33, 9 January 2009 (UTC) by Haliman - Talk
Status Undefined
Summary An attempt to mediate the hostilies between UBCS and Umbrella as well as prepare a POV neutral war report page


Kristi of the Dead vs. Recruitment

Involved Users Kristi of the Dead, Recruitment
Arbitrator undefined
Created 01:54, 19 November 2008 (UTC) by Kristi of the Dead
Status Undefined
Summary n/a


St. Iscariot vs. Boxy

Involved Users Iscariot, Boxy
Arbitrator WanYao
Created 04:55, 21 December 2008 (UTC) by WanYao
Status Concluded.
Summary n/a


Archives