UDWiki:Administration/Arbitration/WanYao vs Capt Schwartz

Administration Services — Protection. This page has been protected against editing. See the archive of recent actions or the Protections log.

WanYao versus Capt Schwartz

This is very simple. Capt Schwartz is attempting to subvert the Dunell Hills Barricade Plan page to reflect POV group propaganda. I have attempted to edit the page to be neutral, while still reflecting the real situation on the ground -- which is that The Dead dominate the suburb. However, Capt Schwartz is edit-warring with me and continuing to revert my attempts at NPOV with his own IMO highly POV and drama-mongering edits. This must stop. In the meantime, I'd recommend the page be protected. Thanks. --WanYao 03:58, 24 June 2008 (BST)

I will not accept nubis, grim or conndraka (or however you spell that) as these users possess group-affiliation biases and I do not trust them to remain neutral in this case. Open to other suggestions/offers. --WanYao 04:10, 24 June 2008 (BST)

Barricade Policy pages are not the place for lol. That whole page should be deleted and a standardised cade plan as seen in Santlerville, Penny Heights and most of the other 97 suburbs of Our Fair City should be implemented. That BPE thing is garbage that should fuck off.

"A policy is a deliberate plan of action to guide decisions and achieve rational outcome(s)". In case you didn't pick it up Schwartz, what i'm saying is that just because the suburb is fucked up doesn't mean the plan goes out the window. It is what the cades should be like to make the suburb survivor friendly. Throw him in A/VB i say.--xoxo 08:32, 24 June 2008 (BST)

There is no "standardized plan" as I discovered. It's based on the dominant group or whatever group makes it.--– Nubis ^NWO 09:07, 24 June 2008 (BST)

The Dead have dominated the suburb since [November] (that's 9 months). Any attempts to retake the suburb have met with failure. Currently every building is ruined and best estimates place repair at 20-25AP. It's clear that the dominant group is The Dead. This isn't a "highly contested" suburb except on the wiki. Historically on the wiki the dominant group in the suburb decides the barricade plan. Just check Earletown_Barricade_Plan, Judgewood_Barricade_Plan, Gatcombeton_Barricade_Plan, Yagoton_Barricade_Plan, Millen Hills_Barricade_Plan, Brooke Hills_Barricade_Plan,Santlerville_Barricade_Plan, West Becktown_Barricade_Plan, East Becktown_Barricade_Plan, Richmond Hills_Barricade_Plan, Ketchelbank_Barricade_Plan, Roachtown_Barricade_Plan, Galbraith Hills_Barricade_Plan, Mockridge Heights_Barricade_Plan, Tollyton_Barricade_Plan, Crowbank_Barricade_Plan, Vinetown_Barricade_Plan, Houldenbank_Barricade_Plan, Greentown_Barricade_Plan, Kempsterbank_Barricade_Plan, Wray Heights_Barricade_Plan, Gulsonside_Barricade_Plan, Kinch Heights_Barricade_Plan, East Grayside_Barricade_Plan, Spicer Hills_Barricade_Plan, Buttonville_Barricade_Plan, Wyke Hills_Barricade_Plan, and Danversbank_Barricade_Plan. All of these suburbs have barricade plans made by one specific group, yet there are several groups listed on the suburb page. Where are the barricade plans from these other groups?

Roachtown, Ketchelbank, Richmond Hills, East Becktown, West Becktown, Santlerville, Brooke Hills, and Yagoton also have zombie groups listed on their page (Extinction in a few cases so you can't say it's just some little group) and they don't have a "zombie plan". (actually, I am sure that more of them do, but this is enough to prove my point)

Richmond Hills, Ketchelbank, and Penny Heights have plans made by individual users instead of groups. Peddlesden Village, Chudleyton, Heytown, Molebank, Barrville, Peppardville, Shore Hills, Dartside, and Pennville have no plans at all. Pitneybank and Ridleybank have both. Ridleybank has 2 survivor groups listed (Umbrella and subgroup UBCS).Checking the news for that suburb shows the "back and forth" between zombies and survivors. The news of Dunell Hills does not show that. Most reports are from The Dead saying that the suburb is still ruined. There are currently several zombies in the resource buildings. (7 in the NT alone).

What are the requirements for which group decides the barricade plan if it isn't possession of the suburb? Why are these survivor groups/suburbs allowed to have only survivor plans and not forced to have zombie friendly plans? The only compromise that would be acceptable and is in use in Scarletwood and Penny Heights is that the "historical plan" is on its' own archived page which clearly indicates that it is no longer considered active. It isn't right to force the obviously outdated and unused DHPD plan to be given as prominent display the zombie plan.

If you insist on pursuing this arby case, Capt. Schwartz will no doubt present all of this research officially.--– Nubis ^NWO 09:05, 24 June 2008 (BST)

Santlerville does have an offical zombie barricade plan. But zombie barricade plans look the same for every suburb! So how many do we need? Yeah it's funny to see one once but unlike survivor cade plans which are actually useful to both groups zombie cade plans just say 'every building no cades, rotters at RP - LOLOLOL'. fucking hilarious. Barricade Plans help zombies just as much as harmanz by pointing them to RPs (for revives or rotter clogging) and buildings that should be vsb for easier breaking and entering.

Also while in some suburbs there is a dominant group that puts a barricade plan in place in other suburbs people discuss what they want in a barricade plan or alter the existing one to fit the suburbs needs. Sure the DH cade plan might never be followed but with members of the dead dropping substantially everyday (check the stats page) it might one day.--xoxo 09:17, 24 June 2008 (BST)

The Dead don't have to have the 1500 zombies to hold DH. They took it over with like 30 zombies. So that point doesn't matter. If the DH plan is never going to be followed why should it be the plan? That doesn't make sense.

I disagree that cade plans help zombies. They can read a map or the wiki to find the RPs. The cade plan has nothing to do with that. --– Nubis ^NWO 13:30, 25 June 2008 (BST)

I offer to Arbitrate. -- Cheese 11:32, 24 June 2008 (BST)

I also offer to arbitrate.--'BP^Tmz 23:32, 25 June 2008 (BST)

Sorry, I wrote this and was edit-conflicted by Cheese, above...

Most of you people aren't even involved in this case.... And aren't really contributing to it in any meaningful way. In any event, what you describe, Nubis, is not how barricade plans are developed in practice. I have discussed this in the NPOV policy Talk already. I'll add one point: often, they are created by one group, proposed and then accepted widely with little or no opposition. Not because one group forces submission, but because people agree to it, they agree it's sound and so don't oppose it. That's called consensus.

As for your threat about your Goon buddy doing research blah blah blah... The case is about the Dead using an informational page to take backhanded POV stabs at an in-game enemy. I highly doubt any of your statistical spam will be relevant, and I will probably simply ignore it. Without hurting my case one iota. I'm not scared of you, you know, so what-fucking-ever.

Thing is... you know it... I know... the whole fucking wiki knows it... You're using the page to insult and troll the DHPD. Your side is not about fairness or balance: it's about the Goons being pricks and trolling and humiliating the DHPD. I don't give a fuck about either of your groups and I'll let neither of you fuck around and abuse NPOV conventions. Simple.

And... this case will be dropped if Capt Schwartz agrees to remove the POV group propaganda from the Dunell Hills barricade plan. I have no problem with a few POV digs to be taken at the DHPD -- in the actual description for the BPE/Dead/Goon plan -- I stuck some in in my own edit! That's fine. Specifically, this is what I object to:

• The DHPD policy is of historical interest only.
• Following the DHPD's complete failure to maintain the below barricade plans
• While some would argue that this Policy is zombie-friendly, it is accurate and realistic, two features which lack from other barricade policies that have been proposed for the area. One will note that while the other plans on this page are pie-in-the-sky material, the above policy is currently implemented and maintained.

That's all POV propaganda. Delete it (and don't replace it with different but equally POV garbage)... allow the page to be neutral... and the case is dropped. In the meantime, Cheese is okay with me, but I'd like to wait for a "list" to look at. As I am sure would the good Capitain. --WanYao 11:47, 24 June 2008 (BST)

*The DHPD policy is of historical interest only It is of historical interest only. They don't control the suburb anymore. Plain and simple. That's like saying a DARIS' barricade plan is valid or any other group on the historical group page. It's survivor bias to force the suburb to have a plan by survivors when there are no survivors in the suburb. That's hardly NPOV.

I'll give you the second point. That is rather snarky and probably doesn't belong, but Goons are assholes. That can be removed.

Your point on the commentary on the 3rd point is valid and again Goons = assholes. However, the zombie plan is the one that is implemented and maintained. Not the DHPD plan. The Dead are the dominant group in the suburb. Again, the suburb is only highly contended here on the wiki. In UD, it is clear that DHPD have no presence there (except as zombies).

The DHPD plan should be noted as a historical plan. It should have its' own page with NPOV commentary but the suburb page should link to the zombie plan. It isn't fair to link to a plan that isn't used or even close to being used when the suburb is a wasteland.

Imagine the horror of a new player looking at the DHPD plan thinking they can use their last AP to get to a VSB building only to find it is a ruin with zombies inside. New survivor players that aren't familiar with the history of DH will assume that since there is a survivor plan it must be implemented to some degree and will go to what it shows as safe entryways. Isn't that the point of a barricade plan?

DH needs to be shown as a ruined wasteland completely in zombie hands since that is what it is in the game.--– Nubis ^NWO 13:30, 25 June 2008 (BST)

"It's survivor bias to force the suburb to have a plan by survivors when there are no survivors in the suburb."

Barricade plans are not, and should never be written by zombie (or death cultist) groups or individuals. They are plans that are supposed to be POV, survivor POV. They arn't a statement of what the situation actually is, they are made to show what the situation should be to provide optimal survivor safety, hence the name, "plan". If another survivor group comes along and thinks they can improve on the DHPD plan, then that is fine, but to replace it with a plan that says that all the doors should be open and no generators in the suburb is ridiculous. It is not a viable barricade plan for survivors, and has no place on a barricade plan page, unless it is the zombie barricade plan for the suburb -- boxy ^{talk • i} 13:46 25 June 2008 (BST)

*Munch munch* Curly fries, anyone? *Holds up a box of Arby's curly fries.* --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ ^{#nerftemplatedsigs} 23:47, 25 June 2008 (BST)

This is not a big priority with me... it's all pretty boring stuff... but once we have an aribtrator I'll put together a proper case. In the meantime, we all know the Goons are assholes. And... like.... so???? I don't give a damn if you take pride in that or not, that's your problem... I hate the Goons AND the DHPD both about equally, but that is not the point. The issue is about the wiki, community informational pages and NPOV. Not one or more groups' interwebz social overcompensation neuroses... But, just as a note to what boxy said: barricade plans may be developed by one group, but they are not really the property of that group. They belong to the whole community once accepted by consensus and posted. Meaning, as boxy said, that they can be modified etc. etc. afterwards. Also, the current, potentially ephemeral status of a suburb has NOTHING to do with the existence of a barricade plan. Doesn't matter if the plan isn't used, it's still information that will be put on the wiki. And put on the wiki in a neutral and NPOV manner. Anyhooo... Seeya in "court"... --WanYao 01:58, 26 June 2008 (BST)

Profanity isn't helping your case very much. Just make sure to abstrain from cussing while talking to the "jury". --Arcology 02:01, 26 June 2008 (BST)

Meh, if you can't see beyond a couple four letter words to the content and arguments, that's not my problem. In any event, the only "vulgar" word I used above was one I, in effect, quoted from a pro-Goon post above... The people who use trash talk and homophobic hate speech in highly personal attacks are... well... nevermind.... lol. Just wondering why a couple four letters words are an issue with you, but not hate-speech.... --WanYao 02:10, 26 June 2008 (BST)

Harms the professionalism. Just kidding. Some people (not me) may be offended, however, so it's fine to just play it safe in more pressing situations. --Arcology 02:16, 26 June 2008 (BST)

A goon? You call me a goon? I am no common thug! I am a respected Captain, FIRST CLASS! If my wife was here, God rest her Zombie Bones, she would have some choice words to say about you, my lad.

I have dedicated what remains of my life, here in Malton, to seeing that Barricade Policies, no matter whose they are, are accurate. What good is it, to have a HyperText Information Retrieval System such as this wiki, disbursing information almost instantaneously - far superior to the pneumatic tubes I saw in my youth - if its contents are nearly a year out of date?

I fight for accuracy! For truth! For freedom!

I have surveyed Dunell Hills with my own eyes. I have seen the ruins. I have seen the devastation. I have tripped over rubble in the streets, and listened to the howl of the wind through shattered window frames. And now, after completing my survey for Barricade Policy Enforcement, seeing it with my own eyes, I am brought up in front of this jury. For what? What are these trumped up charges? Are you telling me I have not seen?

Are you telling me I have not stepped over the rotting corpses? Are you telling me I have not hidden in a narrow alley behind Stephen General Hospital while zombies shambled past?

Where is the protection that I was promised? Very Strong Barricades + 2? Tell that to the glass smashed on the mouldy pavement. Let the wet cardboard boxes sagging below fallen ceilings listen to your empty lies.

Where is my crime? --Capt Schwartz 02:52, 26 June 2008 (BST) (FIRST CLASS)

*Sigh* - l2read. Everyone accepts that DH is a wreck with every building constantly open, MOVE ON! This discussion is about the role of barricade plans on the wiki. Are they just a snapshot of the current situation in the suburb or are they what they community agrees to be the most appropriate levels of barricades set up around the suburb to best aid the survivor cause? So get over your bullshit or you'll get fucked over. Not that i care if that happens.--xoxo 03:28, 26 June 2008 (BST)

You know, this could all be so easily resolved if you just added a switch template to the fucking cade plan, with it displaying the zombie one if zombies are in charge, or the human one if they are in charge. WanYao's complaint that the information is lost forever si completely nullified that way. As it stands, a cade plan is absolutely useless for survivors in the suburb. --The Grimch ^{U! E! WAT!} 03:47, 26 June 2008 (BST)

Zombie cade plans are totally pointless! They are always exactly the same, they serve no purpose bar lulz. And just go stare at the Santlerville zombie plan if you want teh lulz.--xoxo 03:51, 26 June 2008 (BST)

You could say a zombie 'cade plan is useless too, of course zombies will want no barricades. ^ copy --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 03:53, 26 June 2008 (BST)

And if survivors start to retake the suburb, how do they find out what barricade levels they should be aiming for if the zombie plan (everything open) is on the page? Barricade plans arn't there to tell you what the situation is, but rather to tell you what to aim for when constructing barricades. This can all be sorted easily by having zombie cade plans (if the zombie residents even want them) on a separate page and a notice at the top of barricade plan pages telling people that the map doesn't show the actual barricade, but rather an optimal defense diagram showing what to aim for. To get an idea about the likelihood of the cades being up or down, they should go to the suburb page news section, not the barricade plan page -- boxy ^{talk • i} 03:57 26 June 2008 (BST)

"Zombie planz are all the same". If you think that all zombie tactics are to stand outside a building and ruin it, you are mistaken, please talk to someone tht knows about zombie tactics. There are RP's to block with rotters, barricades to overbarricade, pinatas to make, locations to attack first and locations to hold, ie sleep in, eg NT buildings. Also Boxy, pleae don't tell me you are saying survivors should get to have their barricade plan on thwe actual page, and zombies have to have it as a link.--KOOKY 21:05, 26 June 2008 (BST)

I believe that "all the same" sentiment was referring specifically to zombie barricade plans, not zombie plans in general, Kooks. You know, doors open, ruined, no generator. I'm suggesting that all barricade plans should be removed from suburb pages, and only links left, because it is survivor POV, tactical information -- boxy ^{talk • i} 00:04 27 June 2008 (BST)

J3D wrote: This discussion is about the role of barricade plans on the wiki.

Then why are you dragging me into this? Let me return to my life in Dartside while you waste the time of our bureaucrats.

Boxy wrote: ... if survivors start to retake the suburb, how do they find out what barricade levels they should be aiming for if the zombie plan (everything open) is on the page?

Typically when one wishes to see what else is on a wiki page they use a scroll bar to scroll down. The DHPD barricade policy is still on the barricade policy page, filed in its rightful place in the Dunell Hills/Barricade Plan. --Capt Schwartz 01:16, 27 June 2008 (BST) (FIRST CLASS)

This is all fine and dandy that y'all are having this discussion. But other than Cheese, are there any offers to Arbitrate buried in the text above? --WanYao 11:45, 27 June 2008 (BST)

I Raised my hand for the job, it's in there somewhere.--'BP^Tmz 22:13, 27 June 2008 (BST)

And... one more time... I made this edit in which I attempted to present the Barricade Plans in an unbiased and NPOV fashion. The opening section, where I explain why there are two competing plans, was copied directly from the Ridleybank page. I even threw my own attempt at a bit of pro-Dead, anti-DHPH bias into the zombie barricade plan's description... Now, of course, my edit is not the be-all-and-end-all of edits, but I'll say with confidence that it's better than Capt Schwartz' biased and totally non-NPOV edits. So, if Capt Schwart is really more interested in protecting Dartside or whatever than in dealing with the fallout from his wiki-dramatics... Then let my NPOV edit stand, stop using the barricade plan as a forum to insult your in-game enemies... And this Arby case goes away, because there's no need for it... Simple solution... --WanYao 12:01, 27 June 2008 (BST)

tl;dr - I'll take the case as Arbitatortot if both sides agree to calling me Mr. Fuzzybuns and both sides refers to each other as "The Respected Gentlemen in the Snazzy Blue Fedora". If not then I'll just take the case as a normal Arbitatortot. --Sonny Corleone ^{DORIS MSD pr0n} 01:30, 28 June 2008 (BST)

Sonny is not acceptable. BP I don't have any objections to per se, except that I can't find any history of cases to form an impression with. --WanYao 06:42, 28 June 2008 (BST)

Yeah...well...fuck you too buddy. Yeah. Unh. Take that. --Sonny Corleone ^{DORIS MSD pr0n} 17:17, 28 June 2008 (BST)

Yes, This would technically be my first case. I was arbitor in one case, but was quickly switched out because I wasnt logged in at the time, and it was a pretty stright forward case. however, I have been around the wiki since October of 06 and have kept a pretty close eye on the many Arbies cases that have passed through. I do understand however that you may not want a "newbie" arbitor, but I do suggest you give me chance. but the final choice is up to you.--'BP^Tmz 08:18, 28 June 2008 (BST)

Re: Selection of Abritrator

Ok, this is dragging out... Blood Panther and Cheese are both fine with me... Now it's Capt Schwartz' turn. --WanYao 18:34, 29 June 2008 (BST)

Damn...My offering of Curly Fries didn't work...I must try the cheese sticks... --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ ^{#nerftemplatedsigs} 01:57, 30 June 2008 (BST)

If you're still looking for arbitrators I'm always available.--Karek^maps?! 08:14, 30 June 2008 (BST)

I'm sorry, Axe, I didn't understand you... And everyone who's stepped up so far is perfectly acceptable with me. --WanYao 08:51, 30 June 2008 (BST)

Uhm, except for Sonny, of course. Axe, karek, cheese and BP are all fine with me. --WanYao 09:32, 30 June 2008 (BST)

If it'll help clear this up, The DHPD will accept the 3 plans on the page, provided that the text is reworded to "Like most suburbs, Dunell Hills has a survivor-based barricade plan. However, it must be noted for the sake of neutrality, that other key stakeholders in this suburb have their own policies, which they have often successfully enforced. All three policies are listed below." and that the plans be reordered to put BPE at the bottom. Before we argue the last point, I think we can all agree that the DHPD plans' purpose is to show what pro-survivors should be aiming for, while the BPE shows what zeds should aim for. The latter is probably common sense and not overly useful to wiki users, but deserves its place as much as the RRF plan. Sanpedro 09:17, 30 June 2008 (BST)

That's perfect. The point is to make the page neutral. And in its current state, it is not neutral. Now... I have accepted offers for arbitrators... I have also offered "terms" for dropping the case... And a representative of a major stakeholder in this dispute -- Sanpedro of the DHPD -- has offered what they consider to be an acceptable edit, and that edit is a-ok with me... Sooooo... the ball is is now in Capt Schwartz' court, methinks. --WanYao 09:31, 30 June 2008 (BST)

The DHPD are not the dominate group on the suburb, they are the historical group. The BPE plan is a survivor plan and the BPE is a survivor group. I believe that the plan that is actually being enforced is the plan that should be at the top of the barricade plan for Dunell Hills. Since the entire suburb is ruined, the correct thing is to leave the BPE's plan up at the top of the page. From what I have read on the BPE's page, it seems that they view actual building conditions and then cross reference them with the current barricade plan for the suburb. -- LABIA on the INTERNET ^{Dunell Hills Corpseman} #24 - |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| ^TMG 09:34, 30 June 2008 (BST)

Not relevant. Either take this to an actual arby, get the case rolling, and put your money where your mouth is... Or STFU. --WanYao 09:36, 30 June 2008 (BST)

And the BPE are not a survivor group. --WanYao 09:38, 30 June 2008 (BST)

The reason that the BPE even bothered to update the Dunell Hills Barricade Plan is not relevant because why? I am a member of The Dead and I actively patrol Dunell Hills. There are no real survivor presence in Dunell Hills because 100+ Zombies make it so. What other suburb in Malton has this exact status (Large zombie group vs ineffective survivors)? Ridleybank has this exact same status. The Ridleybank Barricade Plan leaves room for both survivor and actual (zombie) barricade plans, but note that the actual plan is listed before the survivor plan.

Ridleybank said:

Like most suburbs, Ridleybank has a survivor-based barricade plan. However, it must be noted for the sake of neutrality, that the RRF has its own building code, which it seeks to enforce. Both survivor and RRF barricade policies are listed below. RRF Building Code Ord 1.1 Barricades * Barricades and the building of such are forbidden in Ridleybank, in Barhahville, and Stanbury Village due to the various negative effects of these constructions. Much like meth labs, barricades lower property values, obstruct emergency access, present an eyesore, and violate fire codes. As such, barricades are illegal and will be removed as discovered. Ord 1.1a Fines * Barricades, Being present in a building with: One Brain per adult. People under the age of two levels will not be fined but given a stern Graaahing on the perils of barricade-abuse, and offered an opportunity to become a naturalized citizen of Ridleybank. * Barricades, Building of: One Brain per adult. Violators capable of building barricades will be always eaten first, since they are violating Ridleybank's only building ordinance by their mere existance. Remember, barricades don't annoy zombies, barricade-builders annoy zombies. * Barricades, Being a: Immediate destruction. If the barricade is found in possession of Brains, then the barricade will be fined one Brain and given a stern graaahing on shaping up and adding to the community, possibly as a gazebo. Survivor Plans Since there are rare instances of increased human presence in the suburb, The Cannonball Crew has created a plan based on the Uniform Barricading Policy. According to the policy, "high value" targets such as hospitals and police departments should generally be kept at VSB (Very Strongly Barricaded) in order to give low-level survivors access. However, if one of these buildings is attacked, survivors can raise the barricades until the attack is over. Eugene General Hospital and the Blackmore Building are exceptions to this rule. It should be noted that this neighborhood is claimed as the home of the largest zombie horde in the game. Barricade levels cannot be guaranteed and low-level survivors are advised to stay out of the area.

Also, it would not make sense to take you to arbies since you already are involved in the exact same dispute that such a case you are suggesting that I bring. Edit - As far as if the BPE is a survivor group, their page sure looks like one. "Barricade Policy Enforcement group is a gathering of survivors that check barricade levels of buildings, report survivor groups that are not enforcing their own policies, and help to deter zombie spies and generator killers."-- LABIA on the INTERNET ^{Dunell Hills Corpseman} #24 - |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| ^TMG 09:56, 30 June 2008 (BST)

PS - You are a faggot douche for telling me to STFU while blowing that DHPD member. -- LABIA on the INTERNET ^{Dunell Hills Corpseman} #24 - |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| ^TMG 09:58, 30 June 2008 (BST)

Whatever... I can't be bothered to read your wall of text, nor address your "witty ripostes". The case is simple, and the SA faction has so far demonstrated NO INTEREST in making the page NPOV. You wanna talk about Ridely??? Well... I ripped the text for my NPOV edit straight off the Ridelybank page... But, Capt Schwart edit warred with me over it, returning it to a POV state, so... What does that say, hmmmmmm... Also, I'd like to refer you to the Barricade plan for a suburb which has been zombie-dominated for a very long time... Maybe you've heard of it: Eastonwood... I'm waiting for an arby case to start here... And demonstrating over and over again the strength of my case. Maybe that's why you're all just drama-whoring and not dealing with the case, just doing the usual troll game and stalling?? As I said, put up, or STFU. --WanYao 10:28, 30 June 2008 (BST)

Pro tip - ... makes for dramatic ... pauses. -- LABIA on the INTERNET ^{Dunell Hills Corpseman} #24 - |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| ^TMG 11:33, 30 June 2008 (BST)

Gard, if you're not here to participate in this case, then quit spamming the page. Besides, from what I've been seeing up there, everyone have been throwing random facts back and forth. You do know an arbitration case cannot be made until an arbitrator has been chosen, right? Now quit discussing what could be important facts in the case! --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ ^{#nerftemplatedsigs} 15:37, 30 June 2008 (BST)

Or at least take it to the talk page.--'BP^Tmz 21:01, 30 June 2008 (BST)

Capt Schwartz has been online and made edits to the wiki, but has not responded to this arbitration case? What is the procedure if the other party fails to deal with the arby? --WanYao 13:14, 4 July 2008 (BST)

Well...I think a sysops would intervene here...They'll make one of 2 choices. 1) Throw the case out completly, or 2) have the Capt represented. So...we'll just sit back and wait. --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ ^{#nerftemplatedsigs} 21:31, 4 July 2008 (BST)

The sysop that tries to step in here and rule on that writes their own misconduct case. Precedent states that if someone chooses not to participant then they can be represented by another party. However for a sysop to wander in, ascribe meaning to his inaction and accordingly bind him to a result is wrong. And it will cause a shit load of drama. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 21:59, 4 July 2008 (BST)

You could try 3) Fucking remind him on his talk page that he needs to pick an unbiased arbiter, lol. -- LABIA on the INTERNET ^{Dunell Hills Corpseman} #24 - |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| ^TMG 21:53, 4 July 2008 (BST)

I don't know whether you can see it amongst all the other clutter on this blasted page, but I will only accept Nubis as arbitrator on this ridiculous and unnecessary case. --Capt Schwartz 03:37, 10 July 2008 (BST) (FIRST CLASS)

I'll give it a go, if you want. I'm a bit weary of how much time it'll take up though, having about 10 pages of discussion and not even having found the arbitrator yet. DanceDanceRevolution 04:35, 11 July 2008 (BST)

Hey Capt. I'm not sure if you can see it on this blasted page, but Wan Yao already stated that he will not accept Nubis, therefore, Nubis is out of the picture. --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ ^{#nerftemplatedsigs} 02:38, 14 July 2008 (BST)

Not to mention no where up there do you say, you'll only accept Nubis. aside from the big color post that is.--'BP^Tmz 22:55, 14 July 2008 (BST)

The "big color post" is where I said I would only accept Nubis. --Capt Schwartz 00:38, 16 July 2008 (BST) (FIRST CLASS)

Nubis is unacceptable. The reasons for that ought to be obvious. I have accepted several offers, and open to still others; my list of "unacceptables" is quite short. Meanwhile, Captain Schwartz describes this as "a ridiculous and unnecessary case". I agree. I have offered what is IMO a perfectly fair and reasonable resolution to the dispute, upon acceptance of which this case would be dropped. This offer has been ignored. So... Given all this... I am left to wonder if someone is just stalling and trying to drag out the drama? Naaaah, couldn't be, nevar. --WanYao 03:03, 15 July 2008 (BST)

Probably going to regret this, but I did add my name to the list of arbitrators a while back. I would be willing to give it a go, if both sides were willing. Ottari ^{DA PDA NW} Read the Dispatch!

I do not accept Ottari as arbitrator on this ridiculous and unnecessary case. --Capt Schwartz 00:38, 16 July 2008 (BST) (FIRST CLASS)

Then pick an arbitrator from the list Wan has accepted, Capt. Or reject them all. Your choice. --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ ^{#nerftemplatedsigs} 23:23, 16 July 2008 (BST)

Alrighty then

Seeing as this seems to be athe strategy here... Ignore it till it goes away... Okay... It's going away. Case Dropped.

The Dumbell Hills Barricade Plan page can be unprotected.

And... there is going to be another giant fucking edit war. And I'm going to be leading the charge.

The Arby system is obviously broken. As is the wiki in general. And like a hungry zambah who's just pulled off that last section of barricade... I'm stepping inside, groaning, shouting "BANANA GANGBANG!" and starting the feeding frenzy. Full fucking on. Calling all braineaters to join in!! Make a joyful grunt, and kill them all!

Enjoy cleaning up the mess, ladies and germs of the Admin team... Or... or get fucking your shit together and fix the problems with the wiki. --WanYao 22:42, 22 July 2008 (BST)

Wow. You do realize this edit war threat makes you look like a 2 year old throwing a temper tantrum, don't you? And that if this admin staff had the "balls" to clean up the wiki you would be on the ban list for threatening to start edit wars (what's more "bad faith" than that?) I'd surely ban you if the admin staff was actually supposed to be "proactive" as you seem to think they are rather than "peacekeeping" as they intend to be.

So your pointless arby case that wouldn't have solved the larger issue fizzled out and you are pissed. Wah! If you were as "Pro-Wiki" as you claim to be then you would realize how fucking stupid trying to solve this whole issue with Arby would be. You would be giving the decision for future precedent on what counts as a "survivor" group on the template page to just one person that is bound by no real restrictions on their decision. And any little quibble after this over groups on the page would site this. That's not in the best interest of the wiki.

The only real thing that needed to be done for this whole mess was locking the page to stop the active edits and giving everyone a "time out". Which is what Grim did and DHPD decided it was misconduct. That right there should tell you which group takes this "too seriously". --– Nubis ^NWO 23:32, 22 July 2008 (BST)

You'd like to ban users for threatening to do stuff? Isn't making dissent illegal what all totalitarian regimes do? Why I believe it is.

Cometh the revolution, where sysops can be removed by consensus, for this comment you will be the first against the proverbial wall. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 23:35, 22 July 2008 (BST)

The Arby case was anything BUT pointless. It was completely legitimate. Moreover... I acted in very good faith trying to find a reasonable solution to drop the Arbitration and move on. Even that solution was ignored by the other party.

However... since I believe I am in the right in the issue that made this go to Arby in the first place, I shall be editing to reflect that. Now... there doesn't HAVE to be an edit war... Not at all. If the "other side" is willing to be reasonable and to actually accept -- god good even work WITH me -- to create a genuinely NPOV version of the page in question. However, sadly, I have no doubt that Goons will choose to keep the dispute going... And if that's the case, I won't back down. Simple, really.

I also don't care if you, or anyone else, thinks this makes me look stupid. I mean, really, given everything else that goes on here, taking a principled stand and then making a fun ruckus about it... And having someone like you call me names? Well... bring on the name-calling...

And... finally, as Iscariot noted... You throw your weight around, now? make some threats? talk about given me teh BANN HAMMAH!!! Well, ain't that you being good little member of the corrupt admin team, Nubis. You go!! --WanYao 00:57, 23 July 2008 (BST)

Also... this Arby isn't about the DH groups template, FYI. It has NOTHING to do with that, or with the Grim vs. the DHPD Misconduct case. Get your facts straight, man. --WanYao 01:04, 23 July 2008 (BST)

In the interest of defusing this before it starts, I will offer to arbitrate this case (even though the Wan considers it ended). I understand I earn at least some respect from members of The Dead for my comments on other community pages, accordingly I will concede that I followed the discussion here because it was the only case for a time and because I knew Wan Yao from the Bash days. However I will familiarise myself with the issues of the case and act in an impartial manner if both parties will return to the table. In interests of good faith I'd ask that Captain Swartz respond first given his precedent of being stringent in his choice of arbitrator. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 01:05, 23 July 2008 (BST)

Capt Schwartz isn't interested. I've already accepted several Arbitrators, and would consider you, as well. He, however, will only accept, I believe it's Nubis, who I said is unaccaptable due to his membership in SA/the Dead. But CS won't accept anyone else. Thus effectively grinding the whole thing to a halt. That appears to have been the intent all along. Well... he wins... It worked. It's over. But the issue itself isn't over, and the DH Barricade Plan needs to be fixed and made NPOV -- and not one or any group's POV ring of terrirorial e-piss. And I will do that. And I will work with anyone, Goon included, who acts in good faith to make it so. However, I have little faith that a Goon will act in good faith in this issue... Thus, I anticipate another edit war... Doesn't have to be that way... I've offered again and again a way out... --WanYao 01:57, 23 July 2008 (BST)

Yep... The Cap will win this whole thing by simply rejecting everyone. Interesting, really. DanceDanceRevolution 02:01, 23 July 2008 (BST)

I shouldn't have jumped the gun there, above. That was pretty cynical... although, it's justified cynicism, IMO. However, I'm honestly not interested in this anymore. Capt. Schwartz has won, if he his intent was to stall this into non-existence. But... If the DH Barricade plan comes unprotected, I'm going to edit it to be NPOV. If someone makes it non-NPOV, I'm going to revert it. Without hesitation. And... if someone edits it and changes stuff that I did, but it's still NPOV, I'll leave it be. Now, if that's starting an edit war and being a vandal... then slap teh bann hammah on me, fine... But, again... This could have been settled in a different way, still could be, but there seemed/seems to be little willingness from the other side to do so... --WanYao 07:27, 23 July 2008 (BST)

If you really want, I could represent the Capt, I heard I'm a good bush lawyer. DanceDanceRevolution 07:58, 23 July 2008 (BST)

I think he's saying it goes beyond this and it's not really his decision as to whether or not you rep CS, just unblock the page, let an edit war break out and then let a mod step in Wan.--xoxo 08:24, 23 July 2008 (BST)

See, I don't know if it's "procedure" ... for someone else to represent a party if they don't cooperate. I couldn't find such a policy anywhere, and if it is policy, then I was expecting a sysop to step in and make it happen. Franky, IMO this was a very simple and straightforward case... and all the drama... the reams and reams of posts... were totally unnecessary. --WanYao 09:33, 23 July 2008 (BST)

Looky what I found:

   Between them, the involved users choose an arbitrator
   * The people in the case can choose any user of the wiki, be them listed in the Current Arbitrators list or not.
   * You can see how an arbitrator has conducted their previous cases at Category:Arbitration Cases.
   * If no arbitrtor is agreed upon, one will be chosen by the administration team

Sooooooooooooooo ... Where was the Administration team in all this? How long has this whole debacle been going on? Ok... I totally FAILED by not finding this until now... Sure. However, it ought not to be MY responsiblity to find this, and then to ASK for it to be done. The sysops ought to know the rules, know what's expected of them, and ought to have stepped in and done their jobs and chosen an arbitrator. And some still wonder why I, and at least a few others, protest so loudy against the system and the team being broken...

However, once again: Case dropped. I thank others for their efforts to intervene. But, forget it. This drama ends here. Move this to the archives. --WanYao 15:29, 23 July 2008 (BST)

Actually, as I was once told myself, for saying exactly what you have said, Those are just guidelines, not rules. it really sucks, this loophole should be closed.--'BP^Tmz 23:17, 23 July 2008 (BST)

Precedent shows that that section is no longer valid and should be changed accordingly. The whole spirit of A/A is a system of resolution away from the sysop team. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 23:22, 23 July 2008 (BST)

Go back to your bridge you annoyance. -- Cheese 23:41, 23 July 2008 (BST)

Where is the admin team in all of this? The page in question, created over a year ago, is still locked and reflecting Capt's edit, which a number of parties obviously disagree with and have been trying to work towards a compromise on. It does seem somewhat unfair that, by completely ignoring discussion, the Capt gets to have his way. If no admin is willing to help resolve the issue, can someone at least unlock the page so that the community can try and resolve it themselves? Sanpedro 05:43, 25 July 2008 (BST)

WanYao, it would be a bad idea for a sysop to nominate an arbitrtor, because then it defeats the purpose of arbitrtation, which is to solve the problem. By nominating an arbitrtor, you would basically be forcing one solution onto someone else, turning this page into Vandal Banning, except with more force.--ShadowScope^{'the true enemy'} 23:16, 27 July 2008 (BST)