UDWiki:Administration/Arbitration/J3D vs Finis Valorum

From The Urban Dead Wiki

Jump to: navigation, search
Padlock.png Administration Services — Protection.
This page has been protected against editing. See the archive of recent actions or the Protections log.

J3D vs Finis Valorum

Finis is reverting a news article on the Santlerville page that provides important information to the suburb regarding the current status of the suburbs most used revive point. Finis is at war in game with the group of the user who made the post (also my group, the Dribbling Beavers) and thus seems to be intent on removing the information in an attempt to discredit the group. This is important information for the suburb and i believe it should remain, i also would like Finis' rights to remove other people's news edits from that page be revoked and if he sees news that he feels should be removed he should consult another member of the community to remove it as it seems he often wants to remove news article that everyone else feels are appropriate. Furthermore I have put in a protection request on the page and feel that both Finis and I should not edit the Santlerville page until the conclusion of this case and that the page should be left at its pre edit war state (ie with the news post fully intact). Put your hand up for arby as most of you are fine with me.--xoxo 14:01, 23 May 2008 (BST)

I offer my services as arbitrator -from someone who is not Nallan (Talk) 14:22, 23 May 2008 (BST)
Your services are rejected.--Luke Skywalker 14:30, 23 May 2008 (BST)
I can arbitrate this case if it's alright with you guys. --ZsL 15:33, 23 May 2008 (BST)
You're fine with me. Let the case begin.--Luke Skywalker 08:37, 24 May 2008 (BST)
Oh sorry i didn't even see you write that - you seem respectable enough, and since you asked second, you're it.--xoxo 11:43, 26 May 2008 (BST)
I'm still here if Finis changes his mind.--Nallan (Talk) 12:18, 26 May 2008 (BST)
Ok, then. Let's get this thing going. --ZsL 17:19, 26 May 2008 (BST)
I will also offer. -- To know the face of God is to know madness....Praise knowledge! Mischief! Mayhem! The Rogues Gallery!. <== DDR Approved Editor 17:09, 23 May 2008 (BST)

I will throw my hat in too, however only accept me if you are both willing to be civil and reasonable when making your cases. --Honestmistake 19:23, 23 May 2008 (BST)

oo oo, me me!--THE Godfather of Яesensitized, Anime Sucks Yalk | W! U! WMM| CC CPFOAS DORISFlag.jpg LOE ZHU | Яezzens 20:20, 23 May 2008 (BST)

*Offers J3D and Finis Valorum curly fries* --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ #nerftemplatedsigs 20:45, 23 May 2008 (BST)

I'll also put my hand up.--'BPTmz 23:56, 23 May 2008 (BST)

Like I said, pretty much any of you are fine with me - if Finis wants to make a list of those he'd be happy with or suggest a few that'd be good.--xoxo 04:04, 24 May 2008 (BST)

Opening Statements

When you're all ready, J3D can present his opening argument, and then Finis can state his. --ZsL 17:19, 26 May 2008 (BST)

J3D

Okay basically Finis is griefing my group in game, which is perfectly legal and i'm totally fine with that (hey, he'd probably say my group is griefing him). However Finis is bringing a totally in game issue onto the wiki which i feel is not on. I'm going to split up my case into two sections - proof of finis' edits which set out purely to hinder the conveyance of important suburb information and what i would like to see as a result of this arby case.

Firstly, proof:

  • The latest removal. I feel that newspiece was NPOV and of benefit to the suburb, hence i undid Finis' reversion and clearly stated that i felt it was news and that i intended to a/a him if he continued. This gave Finis a chance to read over the news and potentially change his mind. He didn't hence we're here today.
  • Past removal. This article was from a totally NPOV view and explained a situation regarding one of the most known groups operating in Santlerville and explaining to other residents why they might be PKed or griefed by supposed members of the Dribbling Beavers.
  • In response to Finis' removal User:Private Damage altered his post to be even less POV. Finis reverted once again and his actions were undone by a unaffiliated member of the community. As the page history demonstrates Finis continued to revert Private Damage's edit until two high profile members (User:Suicidalangel and User:Saromu) of the wiki community and completely unaffiliated from the Dribbling Beavers stepped in.

Those are the two primary incidents when Finis has removed news related to the Dribbling Beavers that i (and evidentially other wiki community members) feel are appropriate news for the Santlerville news section.

Result:

I have no particular desire to see Finis punished for his edits, presumably he did what he felt was right. However I would like to see Finis banned from removing anyone else's posts from the Santlerville page News section. As on numerous occasions he has acted against the general desires of the community and removal of other people's posts is not a necessary action for contributing to the suburb page i think this is reasonable. Previously i had desired to see him banned from editing that page however I think he should be able to make his own news posts and perform other housekeeping on the page he may desire to do. If this ban was implemented, should Finis desire to remove a news article he should post on the Suburb talk page to see if other members of the community agree with his view.

Finis Valorum

Well, I see J3d has strayed as much as possible from the subject of this arby case, so I'll too start with digressing about past issues.

  • Yes, I do remove from time to time random discussions, POV stuff and other things that shouldn't be in the news section from that page (such as this or this and so on and so forth) and from other pages as well. However, I have only antagonized twice on this matter with members of J3d's group, this being the second time (the first incident was reverting Private Damage's edits as shown above. In that instance, I have actually moved his post to the talk page so that users can express their opinion there). In both cases, the users posting the news (Private Damage and Calista Griffin) have displayed an utter lack of interest for any kind of discussion and their posts were no more special than others I have removed. This is hardly a supposed ingame war continued on wiki as J3d tries to assert.
  • What J3d avoids to mention is that he was involved in a very similar arby case which ended with a ruling against him. This is closely connected with the "past removals" incident he mentions since he tried and failed miserably to have me banned for breaking the ruling. These incidents show that J3d has quite a history of disruptive behaviour regarding such issues.

Now to talk about the actual case. The main reason I removed this post is because it's a blatant POV, inappropriate for any news section. Let me go into details: The news section is not meant to be a place for tactical or planning information for one side's benefit. Survivors aren't the sole players or inhabitants of Santlerville and revive points and their management are implicitly a survivor tactic. Thus, such information should be posted on the talk page rather than on the news section. That news post is not "news" but an attempt to discuss tactics. Moreover, the post is bordering group advertising: it basically states St. Emelia is a revive point run by a certain group, an unnecessary info since that building is already listed amongst the suburb's RPs. If there have been some significant changes in RP activity, their status should be altered accordingly on the resource buildings section and discussed on the talk page but most certainly not on the news section.--Luke Skywalker 23:32, 28 May 2008 (BST)

Rebuttals

After Finis has presented his opening statement, J3D can write a rebuttal (if he wishes), and then Finis can present his (again, if he wants to). --ZsL 17:19, 26 May 2008 (BST)

J3D

Most of what Finis wrote was totally irrelevant however i will address the issues he brought up that require responding to anyway.

  • "the first incident was reverting Private Damage's edits as shown above. In that instance, I have actually moved his post to the talk page so that users can express their opinion there" - it seems odd to me that not in only did you not bother talking to any other members of the Santlerville community over removing information that they later demonstrated was news worthy, but you actually moved it to the talk page under the header 'Crap that was posted as news'. To me it seems like you were more intent with slandering the Dribbing Beavers than encouraging other users to "express their opinion".
  • "In both cases, the users posting the news (Private Damage and Calista Griffin) have displayed an utter lack of interest for any kind of discussion" - In both cases the users posting the news either restored the edits (In Calista's case i had already restored the edits but she demonstrated her interest in the preservation of her post by removing a newbies unauthorised edits to it) or altered the edits in an attempt to avoid having Finis remove them. In Private Damage's case there was no need for him to join the discussion as the other parties involved in the discussion (including me) successfully kept his post in the news section. The same is the story here, on behalf of the dribbling beavers i am advocating that the post remain, there is no need for Calista to join the 'discussion'.
  • "What J3d avoids to mention is that he was involved in a very similar arby case which ended with a ruling against him." - Actually the reason i didn't bring up that case is because it is completely irrelevant. That was a case of me placing news on another suburb page, Finis editing it and receiving a vandalism warning then sulking about that and creating an arbitration case against boxy. He then changed his mind and started a case against me. The verdict was brought forward and i willingly altered my news post. Completely irrelevant to the case at hand.
  • "he tried and failed miserably to have me banned for breaking the ruling." - Actually you may notice that is was Cheeseman who brought the vandalism case against you, not me.
  • "Survivors aren't the sole players or inhabitants of Santlerville and revive points and their management are implicitly a survivor tactic." - The information provided by Calista is not only relevant to survivors. Death Cultists will benefit from knowing where to head for a revive (and where to over barricade), rotters will know where to stand to slow revives, zombies will benefit from knowing where to head if they want to return to life and survivors will know where to keep barricades down and where to head to revive those requiring it.
  • "the post is bordering group advertising: it basically states St. Emelia is a revive point run by a certain group, an unnecessary info since that building is already listed amongst the suburb's RPs." - Rubbish. The groups is mentioned as a war is being waged against the group in game and hence it is highly likely that the over barricading is direct at them. Griefing St E's would be an effective tactic against the Beavers as it was the beavers who originally put forward and implemented the new RP at St E's, they are also the main group or monitors it although of course many other smaller groups as well as locals also maintain it. Simple numbers on the stats page if nothing else show that the dribbling beavers are the group with the most members that run St E's - which along with the fact that it was set up by the beavers clearly demonstrates the relevance of mentioning the group in the news post.

As Calista's post provided important information to all users and abusers of Santlerville main Revive Point i feel it is important that it remains on the Santlerville news section. Furthermore i feel that Finis' obvious bias against the dribbling beavers and indeed information being conveyed to the residents of Santlerville that his rights to remove others edits from the page should be revoked.--xoxo 05:17, 29 May 2008 (BST)

Finis Valorum

Let's take the irrelevant parst first:

  • I couldn't care less about your impressions. That header is there from last year when some posts were moved after several users confused the news section for the talk page. No one seemed to be bothered by it, hence it remained unchanged till this day.
  • Yes, in both instances you're the only one advocating the group's cause with your solid background of childish vandalism directed against me and the community itself. It's like you're engaged in some personal vendetta.
  • It's as relevant as you digging up that old edit conflict you brought up: it emphasizes your background behaviour and preference for POV edits.
  • So weren't you the on who suggested the vandal report and who also requested another ruling ? Yeah, that's what I thought.

These being said, I can't help but notice that, only in his rebuttal, J3d had actually something relevant to say about the case in question, particularly the news post.

Now let's get to the actual case:

  • In case you haven't noticed, there's a list of revive points in the resource building section along with their status. Unless you believe "information" and "news" are synonyms.
  • "The groups is mentioned as a war is being waged against the group in game and hence it is highly likely that the over barricading is direct at them" - The news section deals with certainties not with group theories. It has been almost a month since St. Emelia is no longer acting as a revive point and despite the news post, it is run by no one.
  • And what's with the promoting tactics thing ? ("survivors are encouraged to..")

To sum up, I am against inserting POV metagaming information in the news section. Moreover, right now, the wiki does not reflect an in-game already long term situation. St. E is described as a revive point, although almost a month has passed since it no longer functions as one and is unlikely to resume this status in the near future. Thus, the post in question not only does not qualify as news but also renders the wiki itself an ureliable source of information for players. Therefore I wish that post be excised as I originally did and, given his obvious bias against me, J3d's rights to undo any of my edits on the Santlerville page be revoked.--Luke Skywalker 22:28, 30 May 2008 (BST)

Ruling

Alright, I guess I'll start off with the quote in question, and whether or not it is NPOV.

Calista griffin said:
Despite graffiti that says otherwise, the main revive point in Santlerville is St. Emelia's Church, [77, 26] the indoor rp run by the Dribbling Beavers. It has not been moved to the cemetery one east. We encourage all citizens of Santlerville to assist with decading and change all graffiti to reflect this fact. --Calista griffin 00:50, 21 May 2008 (GMT)


For the most part, this post is NPOV. However, I do not think that the line stating, "We encourage all citizens of Santlerville to assist with decading and change all graffiti to reflect this fact." should be included in it. The news section should be populated with verifiable facts, not the promotion of individuals to engage in certain activities. The rest of the quote contains statements which are helpful to the community and verifiable facts. The quote should be written as:

Calista griffin said:
Despite graffiti that says otherwise, the most active revive point in Santlerville is St. Emelia's Church [77, 26], an indoor RP run by the Dribbling Beavers. It has not been moved to the cemetery one east, as spraypainted in-game. --Calista griffin 00:50, 21 May 2008 (GMT)


Moving on to the edit war, I have decided it would be best that Finis cannot be able to edit the posts of J3D, or any other member of the Dribbling Beavers in any way. In addition, neither J3D nor any other member of the Dribbling Beavers can edit any of Finis' posts, in order to keep it balanced. The ruling applies to all of the individual suburb pages on the wiki, not just the Santlerville page.

Summary

  • The post in question was mostly NPOV, but it should be changed to, "Despite graffiti that says otherwise, the most active revive point in Santlerville is St. Emelia's Church [77, 26], an indoor RP run by the Dribbling Beavers. It has not been moved to the cemetery one east, as spraypainted in-game."
  • Finis cannot edit the posts of J3D & the Dribbling Beavers in any way on any of the individual suburb pages.
  • J3D & the Dribbling Beavers cannot edit the posts of Finis in any way on any of the individual suburb pages.

--ZsL 23:06, 1 June 2008 (BST)

Acceptance of Verdict

  • I'm fine with your ruling however i'm not sure as to whether or not an arbitration case can impose a ruling on uninvolved parties, ie the rest of the beavers.--xoxo 06:24, 2 June 2008 (BST)
  • I'm fine with the ruling too. St. E hardly is and hardly will ever be a revive point, let alone the most active one but I suppose it's a good exercise to let players realize on their own how untrustworthy the wiki is.--Luke Skywalker 10:37, 2 June 2008 (BST)
  • I'm glad to see that you all have accepted the ruling. J3D, I do think that I overextended the ruling somewhat when I included the Dribbling Beavers in it, but I felt that it was necessary in order to prevent possible conflict in the future. Case closed, gentlemen. --ZsL 22:41, 3 June 2008 (BST)
Personal tools
advertisements