UDWiki:Administration/Arbitration/Sonny Corleone vs Bonefiver

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.

Sonny Corleone vs. Bonefiver

Does not understand the difference between a new post and a post aimed to discredit another group's post. Decided to create an edit war even after the post was turned into an unbiased post that still shows their side of the story. Was warned for vandalizing and told to take to arbitration but decided to vandalize again.

Arbitrators that I will accept:

Banana Bear4

Bob Hammero





LCpl Mendoza

Mia Kristos



The General




These were picked random except for the few that are mods so they are to be trusted.

Sonny Corleone WTF 16:49, 11 June 2006 (BST)

I will be willing to arbitrate, if Bonefiver will have me. Cyberbob  Talk  16:51, 11 June 2006 (BST)

I'll accept you. You're a mod. Sonny Corleone WTF 16:57, 11 June 2006 (BST)
Based on your comments on http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php/Moderation/Vandal_Banning page (on Rosicrux case) and my talk page http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php/User_talk:Bonefiver I cannot accept you as an arbitrator for the possibility of biased attitude against me. Bonefiver 19:11, 11 June 2006 (EET)

Pistols at fifty paces. –Xoid STFU! 17:22, 11 June 2006 (BST)

Should I point out at this phase that I was never given a warning about vandalization. I believe the description of this case is incorrect because it was copied and pasted from the Rosicrux case. Bonefiver 19:37, 11 June 2006 (EET)

Why, you're absolutely correct. Warned for this edit. Thanks for reminding me! Cyberbob  Talk  17:43, 11 June 2006 (BST)
No problem. However the description is still inaccurate. After that warning (and that edit for that matter) I haven't vandalized the page in question or other pages. Bonefiver 18:00, 11 June 2006 (BST)
I don't understand what you're getting at. Nor, to be honest, do I care. Cyberbob  Talk  18:02, 11 June 2006 (BST)
This has nothing to do with that. This is a civil case between to wiki users. Sonny Corleone WTF 18:01, 11 June 2006 (BST)

Sorry for spamming and being new to this, but is it possible to add related issues from my point of view to this arbitration so that we can continue gaming sooner? Bonefiver 19:42, 11 June 2006 (EET)

Don't like pistols at fifty paces? Um, yeah, both sides of the story are supposed to be heard here. –Xoid STFU! 17:48, 11 June 2006 (BST)

Before doing so, I'd advise actually choosing an arbitrator? Cyberbob  Talk  17:50, 11 June 2006 (BST)

Like I said. Those were the ones I'd accept. He just has to pick one. Sonny Corleone WTF 17:54, 11 June 2006 (BST)
I know. It was addressed to him. Cyberbob  Talk  17:56, 11 June 2006 (BST)

I am Willing to arbitrate. Conndrakamod T W! 18:33, 11 June 2006 (BST)

I'll accept you as an arbitrator. Sonny Corleone WTF 19:09, 11 June 2006 (BST)
Fine by me too and I assume neutrality even if the arbitrator and the opponent know each other beforehand (See User_talk:Conndraka). Bonefiver 20:01, 11 June 2006 (BST)

Now, if you please, I'd like to hear what I'm being accused of. As mentioned before the description is inaccurate and it should be revised. If the arbitrator has some other approach in mind please ignore this post. Bonefiver 20:01, 11 June 2006 (BST)

I am willing to arbitrate also.--LCpl Mendoza 19:52, 11 June 2006 (BST)

Also I would like the Sonny Corleone vs. Rosicrux case (http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php/Moderation/Arbitration#Sonny_Corleone_vs._Rosicrux) removed from this page because the arbitration was dropped by Sonny Corleone being without grounds. Bonefiver 20:10, 11 June 2006 (BST)

Fair enough. Done. – Nubis NWO 20:48, 11 June 2006 (BST)

I am also willing to arbitrate, I can't tell if you all settled on Conn, if you did, Conn's good too. -Banana Bear 20:21, 11 June 2006 (BST) Bapow! Go Conn!-Banana Bear 20:52, 11 June 2006 (BST)

I think we settled on Conndraka. Bonefiver 20:27, 11 June 2006 (BST)

OK. Conndraka is arbitrator. I'm accusing of Bonefiver of editing the Stanbury Village page in bad faith. When asked to keep it unbiased so that it doesn't out right say you're aimed to discredit another statement Bonefiver ignored it and decided to continue. Then when it was fixed so that it still shows their POV but does not discredit Bonefiver made a comment about me writing it. Bonefiver is mad that a while ago I removed their group from the page, this is because I removed groups that have no updated in a while. I was cleaning out suburb pages because there were a lot of groups on suburb pages that no longer existed. I removed MRH and said "If you guys still exist please add yourself since you have not updated in a while." That was not done in bad faith but to ensure an up to date wiki. All I want is Bonefiver to keep his news statements unbiased so that they do not go to discredit a previous statement, this creates edit wars as we now know. Sonny Corleone WTF 22:31, 11 June 2006 (BST)

I am assuming Sonny Corleone directs this arbitration towards this: http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php?title=Stanbury_Village&diff=286445&oldid=286341 news item, since he didn't specify the target in above post. It was done on good faith but to discredit the earlier news. Now that I read it I would strike out the Malton Retirement Housing recommends zombies try not to make up stories, as it hurts their tiny rotted brains comment so that it's not that offensive. Otherwise it seems a clean rebuttal (with a twist of humor) of the earlier news items which are incorrect and which the opponent thinks can't be edited or deleted as inaccurate. Any Malton Retirement Housing member can verify the fact that they are inaccurate. Also your edit (http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php?title=Stanbury_Village&diff=286699&oldid=286445) directly after aforementioned edit can be seen to be done in bad faith. First of all it mentions Malton Retirement Housing directly and to a casual wiki user it seems to be written by a Malton Retirement Housing member which is not true. This message also serves as an open invitation for zombies to come to Kersley Mansion for a feast. In that regard the message was written or compiled to directly harm Malton Retirement Housing. Lucky for you no harm is done because the post is inaccurate and should be edited or deleted.
My reply to the above edit is not part of this arbitration because I have received my warning about it.
I can agree that I edited the Stanbury Village page in bad faith once, but it was this edit: http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php?title=Stanbury_Village&diff=286746&oldid=286699 and I have recieved a warning for it. Case closed. Note that this points to the Bonefiver made a comment about me writing it sentence in the above post.
I would like to hear where you asked to keep it unbiased. So far I have seen only blunt deletions.
This is irrelevant to this arbitration but I would like to know where did you get the notion that I'm mad at you? Also I would like to know how you asked MRH or anyone else if it's ok to remove their group from Stanbury Village page? I read the history and the Stanbury Village talk history as well as Malton Retirement Housing equivalents and I couldn't find it. On the other hand your comment on that exact edit http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php?title=Stanbury_Village&diff=253885&oldid=249134 makes my eyebrows position themselves vertically higher. As I said this is irrelevant to the current arbitration, but it would be nice to know and perhaps sheds light on my opponents' stance.
Also I would like to know if you Sonny Corleone think it's okay to post news that aren't truthful? Should these posts be either edited, deleted or denied?
Bonefiver 06:45, 12 June 2006 (BST)

I will respond to Sonny Corleone's post later after the arbitrator arrives, but meanwhile I start with my side of the story.

This is how I believe the incident was started: http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php?title=Stanbury_Village&diff=285607&oldid=281778 Rosicrux posted an event which discredits the earlier news. While it is an offense there should be a way to negate them if they are completely false which they are. Any Malton Retirement Housing member can verify this fact. Some contacts can be found on the Malton Retirement Housing home page.

Sonny Corleone replies with deleting the post: http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php?title=Stanbury_Village&diff=285770&oldid=285607 His comments say: Technically isn't news sincei t doesn't update anything but instead tries to discredit another news item. It should be noted that there is no big RRF presence because of Excursion. First he claims in several occasions (http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php?title=Stanbury_Village&diff=281774&oldid=275779 http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php?title=Stanbury_Village&diff=270836&oldid=269410) that Stanbury Village belongs to The Ridleybank Resistance Front and then in that comment he says there's no big RRF presence. Any Malton Retirement Housing member can verify that during those times the zombie activity has been very low.

Rosicrux removes the inaccurate posts: http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php?title=Stanbury_Village&diff=286115&oldid=285770 This was deemed as vandalism and Rosicrux was given a warning and I believe he accepted the warning. However a similar situation in Ridleybank (http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php?title=Ridleybank&diff=265040&oldid=264966) where Sonny Corleone deleted a post claiming it is inaccurate, Are you on drugs? There's zombies everywhere in Ridleybank. It's Ridleybank for christ's sake! in his own words, didn't result to a vandalism warning. In both cases Sonny Corleone singlehandedly decided that there is enough zombies to claim a suburb. Any Malton Retirement Housing member can verify that in Stanbury Village this was not the case.

This is the edit which brought us here for arbitration: http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php?title=Stanbury_Village&diff=286445&oldid=286341 Notice the quotes taken from Sonny Corleone's edit descriptions which are in line with the above statement originally written by Rosicrux. The only offensive line which should've been removed was this Malton Retirement Housing recommends zombies try not to make up stories, as it hurts their tiny rotted brains.. Otherwise it is in line with the current policy on posting latest events -stories.

Sonny Corleone replies with this: http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php?title=Stanbury_Village&diff=286699&oldid=286445 The comments say There you go. Unbiased and does not discredit. Just a simple update. You could have done it yourself but you're too busy trying to discredit. however the action of editing the page like that discredits mine and Rosicrux's work and earlier submissions. Also it is uninformed and assumes things that do not exist like in the earlier presented cases. Any Malton Retirement Housing member can confirm that the last latest events post is inaccurate.

Last of my edits (http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php?title=Stanbury_Village&diff=286746&oldid=286699) was reverted and I was given a warning for it. I accept the warning, however the warning was given hours later by a moderator (Cyberbob240) who I consider to be Sonny Corleone's friend (in the internet sense of the word) based on these forum posts: http://zombies.dementiastudios.org/boards/index.php?topic=162.15 . Anyway this posts case is closed and it should not be part of this arbitration.

I aknowledge and appreciate the work Sonny Corleone has done for the wiki, but in this case I think he has been blinded by earlier lack of opposition on his changes. His posts are biased and reading the The Ridleybank Resistance Front rules it is understandable because he propably has one zombie around to observe the world.

I would like him to write the news regarding Stanbury Village according to the style guide (http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php/The_Urban_Dead_Wiki:Style_Guide) and especially following the Wikipedia NPOV (Neutral point of view) policy. The last four latest events -posts in Stanbury Village page have been sub par while being inaccurate too.

I would like to add a disclaimer to the latest events saying that the events displayed might contain subjective observations and they represent the views of an individual. Also the latest events should be signed so that the individual can be identified. Currently (and I stress that word) Stanbury Village is a safe place for a survivor to be, but the latest events give a false idea of the suburb.

Also I would like stress the fact that my alter ego in this small imperfect universe of Urban Dead lives in Stanbury Village too. I would like to post new events and fix or delete false ones, but so far the job has been hindered by Sonny Corleone who thinks he knows better.

Write and let others write. Bonefiver 23:04, 11 June 2006 (BST)

  1. You have no idea how the wiki works or the game for that matter. The RRF noticed the suburb being downgraded to orange. To keep law and order in the suburb the RRF annexed it and declared martial law. That is NPOV since it does say "RRF takes all suburb, all humans gone." It simply says the RRF annex it. Survivor groups do not need to recognize it. This is the same in Barrville, except no group is creating an edit war.
  2. The MRH created a statement that was biased and aimed to discredit a previous statement. These are not allowed because they create wiki wars. A fine example would be the recent news post on the Rhodenbank page. A zombie made a biased post and it was struck out.
  3. To be fair I kept your post there but edited to meet the standards. Instead of accepting it you made a statement that it is by me. There is no need for that.
  4. Now your whole group is declaring a wiki jihad on the page and is throwing out your credibility.

Sonny Corleone WTF 23:11, 11 June 2006 (BST)

"Now your whole group is declaring a wiki jihad on the page" -Sonny

You jump to conclusions. This is not a jihad, nor is our whole group involved.

I added one (1) news item to the Stanbury Village page, and while the truthfulness of it was none whatsoever I can only say that I follow your lead in that regard. This is a thing that is sometimes referred to as irony (a subclass of humour), ie pointing out your errors by being equally ridiculous. I have now gotten a warning for this (vandalizing) which I accept but truth to be told I think this shows some double standards among the moderators since - AFAIK - Sonny has got none.

What I'm asking with this post is that Bonefiver is not to be judged based on my actions. My vandalism has nothing to do with the matter at hand, it was only a consequence of the already ongoing wiki war. And for the record, credibility is not an issue in this matter. Credibility? On the Internet? Is there such a thing?

You may now go back to your Internet.

--Astram Loccasin 01:48, 12 June 2006 (BST)

  1. I would assume that being downgraded to orange (from red) means that the zombie activity has lowered in the suburb. That is entirely correct and any Malton Retirement Housing member can verify that during those times the zombie activity has been very low. Your announcement of annexing the suburb should not be the only thing that is needed to raise the level. And we, the survivors of the city, should be able to rebut your claims. Zombie activity has been slightly higher for the last two days so perhaps your latest events will become reality later but not the day that you posted the event. Or am I completely mistaken and all the status reports are to be made by a (or one of the) dominant zombie population?
  2. Yes. It was made to discredit your post which was inaccurate. Since you didn't let to delete your inaccurate news (http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php?title=Stanbury_Village&diff=286341&oldid=286115) it was the only option left. Currently there's no options left to comment on a subject that someone has started first. Does it sound fair to you?
  3. There is a need. As I said before the event description mentions Malton Retirement Housing in a way that it sounds like the event was posted by a Malton Retirement Housing member. Also it is an open invitation for zombies to come to Kersley Mansion and as such it can be seen as an attempt to use the wiki as a weapon of war against a rival group. Now that Malton Retirement Housing is denied to rebut these claims by Sonny Corleone by any means (http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php?title=Stanbury_Village&diff=285770&oldid=285607 http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php?title=Stanbury_Village&diff=286341&oldid=286115 http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php?title=Stanbury_Village&diff=286699&oldid=286445) the wiki and it's biased writings affect Malton Retirement Housing's status in the game.
Bonefiver 07:12, 12 June 2006 (BST)

Active Arbitration: Wow. This is going to be interesting.

Bonefiver, myself and Sonny are to determine a person that is acceptable as an editor of Wiki articles. Once that is done, that person will be the only person to edit the Stanbury Village page on behalf of MRH or the RRF division currently led by Sonny. Neither Sonny nor Bonefiver are to edit the Stanbury page but will instead report what they would like edited onto the page to the moderate third party (to be determined) who will then edit the page appropriately in an NPOV fashion.

Bonefiver and Sonny are "technically" warned that inaccurate statements will not be allowed on Suburb pages, and suggest both be aware of the following statement.

Please note that all contributions to The Urban Dead Wiki may be edited, altered, or removed by other contributors. If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly, then don't submit it here.

Please note that I believe that the edits in question were in fact done in good faith, but either poorly written, non-POV or both.

Ruling Penned: 03:00 BST 12 June 2006 Conndrakamod T W! 02:55, 12 June 2006 (BST)

EDIT: This Ruling Shall remain in effect for aprox. 120 Days from Date of being Penned ie 12 October 2006. Conndrakamod T W! 09:57, 13 June 2006 (BST)

May I comment? What about spelling errors and things not related to news? I write lexicons for suburbs so I'll need to edit it for that. And if you think about it bugging one guy to edit things is kind of unfair for that guy. Why not make it so that they cannot post news articles about the other group? That solves the biased and discrediting problem. Sonny Corleone WTF 03:01, 12 June 2006 (BST)

I can handle the NPOV section of the page in question.Its business and I don't care about personal loyalties and all that other bull.Just have both sides email me what their side is concerning status of Stanbury Village I will mix them together and remove anything i consider biased.I will mention the fact that RRF annexed the suburb in question but that the MRH contests this claim.I think thats fair enough.Email is kgensen@aol.com if you agree to me handling it.--LCpl Mendoza 03:10, 12 June 2006 (BST)

Sorry, but I can't agree on that based on this post on RRF forums (http://forums.ridleybank.org/viewtopic.php?p=28272#28272) I quote: DeadSchultz Stiff Joined: 28 May 2006 Posts: 49 PostPosted: Mon Jun 12, 2006 12:36 am Bonefiver your a dumb piece of inbred shit.So is your friend Lexda44.Please go fuck yourselves,choke on a dick,die and get you and your motherfucking snakes off OUR MOTHERFUCKING FORUMS.Thank you and have a nice day.Sincerely yours LCpl Mendoza of the IWM,ASS,and ofcourse a proud member of The Constabulatory of the Ridleybank Resistance Front. -—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bonfiver (talkcontribs) too busy with the research? -Kb.
Yes. That was my comment. I'm 98% sure I signed it, but ... Above unsigned tag by Karlsbad (too busy with tagging? ;)) Bonefiver 06:50, 12 June 2006 (BST)
Heh, you could clear it and add your own sig if you wish. --Karlsbad 07:05, 12 June 2006 (BST)

This arbitration ruling is really unfair. There's no way to get a guy to post for every little thing we write. I would have settled for "Don't write news articles about the other group." Of course, why should we do that? That would be the easiest thing to do. Sonny Corleone WTF 12:25, 12 June 2006 (BST)

Actually either of you can go here and put what ever you want, However the actual edits to Stanbury Village must be made by a third party acceptable to both agrieved parties. Conndrakamod T W! 16:03, 12 June 2006 (BST)

I like it. The ingress is spot on :P Bonefiver 17:27, 12 June 2006 (BST)
Answer this question though. What about things unrelated to news? Like spelling errors, things in the wrong order, and adding lexicon pages? Sonny Corleone WTF 20:55, 12 June 2006 (BST)
As long as intended Content is not changed, I dont see a problem with typographical, or minor editorial issues being fixed by either party. But no significant changes. Conndrakamod T W! 22:57, 12 June 2006 (BST)
Ok. So pretty much no group related news is allowed? I'm asking these question so that I don't get in trouble later. What about updates in sieges? Stanbury Village has a Mall so sieges are expected. Sonny Corleone WTF 22:59, 12 June 2006 (BST)
Sieges would fall under content, so no. Allow someone in an unrelated group Post news of the Seige et al.. Conndrakamod T W! 08:43, 13 June 2006 (BST)

Re:Bonefiver you brought wikidrama to the RRF forums.I certainly was not going to give you a cookie for doing so.But thats irrelevent to me.Really I could careless about what dispute you have.I would not mind doing this for you regardless of my feelings and if you are concerned i may be biased well someone else could check my work.Perhaps Conndraka could review it etc.But I'm just trying to be helpful thats all.If you don't want me to help out ok its your right.But if I decide to volunteer my services don't you think I would have the decency to be impartial in my work. I'm a man of my word.If I say I will be impartial and fair I will.Again its your call.--LCpl Mendoza 22:03, 12 June 2006 (BST)

Negative. I don't think you would have the decency to be impartial in your work because one of the parties involved is your "alliance" mate and the other is "a dumb piece of inbred shit" as you so eloquently put it. Peer reviews would just mean extra work for Conndraka or someone else. Bonefiver 07:36, 13 June 2006 (BST)
Gentlemen please take this to a discussions page. Thank You. Conndrakamod T W! 08:43, 13 June 2006 (BST)

If you are a third party and are interested in taking up this editing task. Please leave your name here for consideration. Conndrakamod T W! 08:43, 13 June 2006 (BST)

How long would this "job" last for? –Xoid STFU! 09:51, 13 June 2006 (BST)
Until October 12th per the addendum to the ruling. Conndrakamod T W! 09:57, 13 June 2006 (BST)
I can deal with that. Is there a system already set up for how it is to be done? (e.g. Saramou/RRF places his stuff on page A, Bonefiver/MRH places it on page B, and I get a message saying; "A'ight, it's ready Xoid." –Xoid STFU! 10:21, 13 June 2006 (BST)
What if one of us quits the game before that date? Say Bonefiver quits, would it be null and void? If I quit? Sonny Corleone WTF 21:03, 13 June 2006 (BST)
I assume that's how it works. Arbitration isn't really my thing. I prefer to abuse my dictatorial powers and intimidate my opposition into bowing before me follow the rules, and be a good little boy. –Xoid STFU! 01:29, 14 June 2006 (BST)
Do I consider this whole thing dead, or what? WTF is going on there? –Xoid STFU! 17:10, 21 June 2006 (BST)
I'm guessing that either both understood, one understood but didn't post anything (and the other didn't read it), or neither read it. --V2Blast TP!CSR 21:19, 22 June 2006 (BST)
I read it. Now it's done and over with. Good. Sonny Corleone WTF 21:20, 22 June 2006 (BST)
Personal tools