UDWiki:Administration/Arbitration/Thekooks vs WanYao

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

Thekooks vs WanYao

I want to start an arbritration case against user WanYao to prevent him from continually removing things from suburb pages for being "POV". When I am of the opinon that the information he removes is NPOV.

Relevent links:

http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php?title=Dulston&diff=1079170&oldid=1079122 http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php?title=Penny_Heights&diff=1072269&oldid=1072243

I will accept several arbritrators, though I would prefer to have Karek or The Grimch as arbritrators.--Thekooks 22:31, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Karek and Grimch are both fine with me. --WanYao 22:36, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Wow...this has got to be a first. O_o Both parties have agreed on a possible arbitrator without a huge long 3 day argument. Either way, I shall volunteer my services in the event that you fancy a third option. -- C h e e s e 22:42, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Naa, sorry Cheese, I'm going to stick with either Karek or Grimch as arbritrators...I give my permission for either of them to start the case if and when they get here, I'll be gone for about 12 hours now.--Thekooks 22:52, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm fine with Cheeseman as well, personally. --WanYao 23:15, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Yep, definitely a first Cheese, but the reason I popped in here was to say that I'm almost 100% sure Grim is not gonna be able to arbitrate this... so just go with Karek...--/~Rakuen~\^Talk

I Still Love Grim 23:51, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Pick me! Pick me! Pick me! This would like, totally be a dream come true! --x o x o 04:48, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm willing to do it, this seems somewhat straightforward. Once I get a confirmation from both of you, again, that I am acceptable I'm move this to the new page and start the general arbitration spiel.--Karek^maps?! 05:44, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

acceptable with me. WanYao 07:41, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Fine with me.--Thekooks 09:47, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

The Case

Ok, You'll notice that there are only currently two headers, they are in the order I want you to go, please be as detailed as you feel you need to be, I don't mind reading a lot, please also avoid rebutting here, just air grievances and such. I'll ask for more if I believe more is still needed but I would prefer that this isn't used as a platform to further arguments. Feel free to take as much time as you feel you need to make your comments.--Karek^maps?! 10:29, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

User:Thekooks

Only Thekooks comments under this header

Well let me start off by saying there is no ill feeling between me and WanYao. I find him to be a very good contributer to the wiki. This arbritration is merely to settle an edit conflict.

Let me establish my case now. WanYao has a long history of deleting, or editing (though I'm not saying he is inpersonating anyone, he doesn't) news items of suburb pages. Now I feel that he should not be deleting news items off suburb pages as they are often useful and sometimes entertaining.

Here I establish this behaviour.

No, I want to argue that what he is doing should not be allowed.

http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php?title=Penny_Heights&diff=1066122&oldid=1065429

this edit is typical of the kind of edits he makes.

The local airwaves have been suggesting the presence of Zombie spies in the area. This has since been confirmed, with various zombies ( in human form ) found in a few locations. This most recently including the Junkyard 98,76 RP, where a human player was found with only zombie skills. Pro-Survivors are reminded to always scan before reviving, just to make sure important information does not fall into the wrong hands.--MichaelRead 14:03, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Tbe edit is clearly informative and is backed up by fact, "this has since been confirmed...".

WanYao's argument for removing it was that it is, "Tactical not News", however since this is the wiki for a game I believe that having tactical and relevent information on the wiki page is acceptable.

To Karek: I request that any questions you may have should be asked, as I believe this is an important part of arbritration which most arbritrators usually miss out.

To WanYao, nothing personal mate.

User:WanYao

I know it's nothing personal... I also know that, unfortunately, my edits cause a lot of strife and bad feelings... So I actually welcome this Arbitration... for many reasons... Including the possibility that I may need to be "corrected" on some counts... If that is the case, I glady accept the chance for the (hopefully constructive) criticism... But I do feel that I have acting in the best interests of the wiki, and that my edits do improve it... Therefore, I would like to see some kind of clarity, in whatever form, be brought to this issue... One way or another.

First, I'll admit something... I am heavy-handed at times. But part of that has to do with the sheer volume of POV stuff that I encounter when I go poking around for it. You get a bit impatient after a while... Also, when you're dealing with half a dozen POV posts on a number of different wiki pages... As much as I'd like to talk to every editor on their User:Talk pages, that's just not feasible... Sorry.

However, I have made a very specific error in dealing with many of these edits.... What I should have been doing with many of them, including a few noted below by thekooks, is moving them to the Suburb Talk page. In fact, right at the exact time this Arby case was submitted, this dispute was resolved by moving the POV reports to the Talk page. No matter what the result of this Arbitration, in future, with the expection of genuinely uninformative, blatantly POV, or troll-baiting, etc. types posts, this is the approach I will take towards any News edits I make.

Anyway... On to the case itself. I'd like to begin by talking in general terms, setting definitions, explaining methodologies, etc. -- like what I believe NPOV is, and how and why I, personally, approach editing for NPOV. I think we really need to start there, because this case needs some context. I'll start by quoting myself in regards to a News edit dispute held on my Talk page:

People are posting blatant POV and tactical/planning information to the News. The News is supposed to be neutral reportage. It is not a place for either side to coordinate tactical responses. Or propagandise (emphasis added). That's for forums, in-game communications and/or the suburb talk pages.

That's the gist of it.....

Tactical/planning information is something I edit/delete quite consistently, and such edits seem to cause the most controversy. But I also stick to my guns the most vehemently on these edits. Why? Because community pages, as I understand them, are just that: for the community. That community includes zombie players, survivor players, PKer players, grouped and independent players, and all different kinds of playing styles within those categories.

As far as I am aware, it's exactly because we have of all these players, and their different in-game POVs, and all of them are using the community pages... that's we have NPOV guidelines. NPOV tries to avoid alienating one of more of these groups. It tries to provide neutral and factual information for all, or as many, of the players coming to community pages as possible.

That's why tactical posts aren't neutral. They give a specific advantage to one group. That's also why posts that serve to promote a group are not NPOV: they're one group taking advantage of the News to set themselves in a superior position. That doesn't serve the interests of the community, but only those of that group.

Another post that I edit/delete often is what I refer to (thanks Sonny for the coinage) as "livejournal crap". The News is supposed to report major events, that have a major impact on the suburb. TRP statuses, notes about major movements in the immediate area, etc. -- this is all newsworthy. Things like play-by-plays of breaches,zombie #s and 'cade statuses are usually not significant events. Same with first person "narratives" that are not about major events, or people “chatting” in News/Events sections (very common in Mall wikis, I find).

Now... before going on to look at each edit presented as evidence, I'd like to cross-post my contribution to the current NPOV policy debate. I want to try to explain my “philosphy” towards NPOV in broad terms -- again, to give all this a bit more context...

Wan Yao's Rant on NPOV:

As many of you know I am one of the hardcore bitches of NPOV on the wiki. Or so people think... But, in fact, thing is I'm actually pretty fucking slack. Rather, it's because soooo many people have been sooooo badly abusing POV lately that I've sometimes been such a bitch. Yes, abusing it. Totally...

Outside of blatantly abusing the NPOV sections for tactics, propaganda or just spammy livejournal crap... I personally don't want to see super-strict controls on style. Or even on content, for that matter. For example, banning the use of the first person is a bloody awful idea: just because something is written in the first person does not invalidate it as a neutral and/or useful piece. I strongly oppose that idea. Or... someone said that facts can't be biased. Bullshit. "Facts" without context are meaningless... and "facts" can be slanted in a completely biased manner. An emphasis on "facts" is not a genuine argument for neutrality. Therefore, an element of subjectivity, of -- gawd forbid -- bias (!!) is often going to come into play in any attempt to present facts or arguments in a meaningful, useful context.

Now, some people have argued that NPOV makes the wiki dull, deprives it of its "character"... That, too, is bullshit. A neutral, non-biased article can also be very entertaining. It's a question of good, creative writing, that's what does the trick. And puh-lease... endless "2 zombies broke into my building today" posts are anything but interesting...

Within this broad context that I have painted, I think there is a lot of room to move. Personally, I want the wiki to have character and to be a fun read... That means allowing some articles that are a little POV. I encourage flavour, even if may stretch some of the "rules". I myself write many News reports that are a little POV -- because it makes them fun. But... there is that. And then there going way over the effen top. And a lot of people have been going way out the bounds... Which IMNSHO ain't cool... --WanYao 16:23, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Ok... Let's move along and look at the edits thekooks has brought up, one-by-one. And I'll try explain what I was doing, and why.

1. I considered this a clear example of pro-survivor tactical tactical planning via the news. Yes, this is useful and factual information... But it's totally one-sided, and it specifically points to a location (the juinkyard), acting to rally survivors to go deal with the situation. “Pro-Survivors are reminded to always scan before reviving, just to make sure important information does not fall into the wrong hands.” Clearly POV. Now, if an effort had been made to simply report the facts -- e.g. “Numerous zombie spies have been reported in the suburb. Local survivors are advising caution” -- you know what? I may well have let that go... It's POV/tactical, yeah, but it's important and factual, yup... and not quite such a blatant abuse of the News for one group's advantage. But as it is, the post is highly POV...

2. RPs are a survivor tactic... Their advertisement and tactical use aren't NPOV news. But, mostly, I deleted this because the announcement was used as a soapbox to promote BBK. Pretty blatantly. The survivor “interview” stuff was not factual, important information -- it was merely BBK marketing. Again, if this post had been written so as not to be POV and propagandistic, I'd most likely have let it be: a new RP is important, and though it technically violates NPOV “rules”, it's something I have used the News for myself.. and have no problems with others doing it. Although, details of Rps belong on the suburb Talk page...

3. One of those livejournaly play-by-plays... Admittedly, looking at it now, this was an “iffy” edit on my part... Maybe I should have left it. But the posts were so sparse, and their information was going to be so quickly out of date, I chose to delete them... A more “news reportage” style update on the PD, however, I would never have deleted.

4. This isn't fucking news. Next please.

5. Spam-o-licious jivejournal crap. No verifiable information, totally POV, totally a call for tactical assistance. Next please.

6. Group “marketing”... Honestly, I don't have a big problem with a group making a short announcement that they've established themselves in a suburb... But it should be short, to the point, and as neutral as possible. This entry was none of those.

7. “Duuddddeee! What happened? When I left on friday, the mall was powered, and I was the only standing zombie for miles, and when I returned today, there wasn't a intact building in sight and the surrounding squares all had like 20+ zeds! WTF!!!” --- LOOL! That's hilarious, I enjoyed it, but it's so obviously POV. Blatant disregard for “objective reportage style” -- which I'm not really that much of a stickler for, buuuut... And, finally, the “factual information” is kinda vague and unverifiable... All these things combined made me see this as a POV post... But... This is another instance where, though the “rules” say one thing, I'll admit... that maybe I ought to have let it go... Maybe...

Ok. I think it's all been said...

I'll be glad to answer any questions that might come up.

--WanYao 19:33, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Stuffs?

There seems to be a bit of a misconception here, a few on both parts. A big one is about the nature of NPOV, so I'll start by clarifying what NPOV is:

What is NPOV

NPOV exists solely as a guideline to how to create an article and it's content. It exists to keep the articles information useful, understandable, and concise, these are it's purposes and they are more important than it's implementation across the board. Tactical discussion is POV but, talking about that tactic because it has relevance to the subject matter is not POV.

When NPOV Should be Enforced

Obviously only at times where the article, in this case the news page, benefits from it(makes the important information easier to find or understand). When something is presented as fact that isn't it should be removed, not for the sake of neutrality but for the sake of clarity, the same holds true for speculation(zombies spais1!!!11!!!!!ELEVENTY!!!!!ONE), and commands(Always scan before reviving comes to mind).

Often times these are simply matters of representation, something along the lines of This edit is blatant POV, you simply can not back up the statement that x user is a zombie spy with any verifiable facts, it's simply impossible for one user to know why another user might not have many skills of any side, this has nothing at all to do with NPOV, it has to do with Wikipedia:Verifiability, however something along the lines of "Many members of the groups NTJ and Gore Corps have recently been spotted in and around the Lumber Mall area, both groups are notable for their close relations to the zombies hordes Extinction and the RRF, this has led to much speculation among the mall's inhabitants on whether the groups are coming to the mall area soon." is both obviously based in fact_{(It's just an example[fiction] before anyone asks)} and actually helps further the purpose of the News section, to provide important information on the state of the suburb in a clear and easy to read manner.

This is a great example of an NPOV comment that talks about a "tactic" while remaining neutral, informative, and somewhat entertaining.

"Livejournal Crap", by which I assume you mean the type of content that the Journal namespace exists for, is an example of spam that crowds up the news and makes its content unreadable and serves no purpose other than that, it's RPing, if it is happening let the user know about the Journal namespace or, possibly, the Lexicon. If that's what they wish to do there are outlets for it that are not Suburb News Sections.

Oh, and one last thing, First person perspective is a POV, "I shot twenty zombies today then ran back to the mall and saw a person with a name that reminded me of a pkers, Kill Boygeorge, he's obviously a zombie spai.", obviously not acceptable, more tame versions such as "I ran out to whittenside and saw 300 zombies eating the mall, I proceeded to scan a few and noticed a lot of Feral Undead members and a bunch of other random zombies, then I ran back here and saw three pkers in the mall kill a guy." is useless, it's junk messages that give more information on the person posting it than the purpose it was posted, it's also just another example of why we should probably stop signing these things, so other users can touch them up and the belief that who is posting the information matters is somewhat lessened. It's meant to be an informational resource, not a bragging tool, and something as simple as avoiding the use of First Person Perspective(I, me, we, us) goes a long way towards the content being useful.

The Ruling?

Well, not exactly much I can do, I'm not going to tell Wanyao to stop editing out things, nor am I going to levy a punishment on him if or when he does edit out things he believes are NPOV, he's actively doing what he thinks improves the wiki. And obviously I'm not going to punish thekooks with anything, that would be absurd. So I guess all that's really left is for me to make a bit of a statement on the matter.

Wanyao, you need to consider why the post was made and its relevance as an information. If it is something like, "a lot of x zombie horde have been spotted in the area" it's obviously relevant information to the suburb and its inhabitants, simply removing it would be the wrong course of action, the section exists for relevant and important information in the suburb to be passed on. It's a player tool in very much the same vein as the Danger Map just more localized and more informative. If something is largely geared towards speculation but contains useful information, like this, don't just eradicate all mention of it outright, provide the useful content, preferably in a manner that isn't just "100 survivors in x place" as that is just as much of a nuisance to read as "ZOMBIES SPAIS EVERYWHERE WE'RE ALL GONNA DIE!".

And thekooks, I don't see the usefulness of many of those links, some of them contain some important information but a lot of them aren't done for the purpose of giving the information but of creating information about events yet to happen. A simple rule of thumb when editing those sections would be Do Not Report The Future, it serves no actual purpose that the talk page or any of the numerous forums for the game don't already fill, much like a general recruitment announcement which has Category:Recruitment, and obviously comments about updating the wiki page belong on the talk page. --Karek^maps?! 16:24, 30 March 2008 (BST)

Yep, fair enough. I wasn't looking for WanYao to get punished or have any form or ruling imposed on him, that would be absurb ,merely to have this discussion and get an official response. Thanks Karek.--Thekooks 20:52, 31 March 2008 (BST)

UDWiki:Administration/Arbitration/Thekooks vs WanYao

Contents

Thekooks vs WanYao

The Case

User:Thekooks

User:WanYao

Stuffs?

Navigation menu

Page actions

Page actions

Personal tools

General

Search

Resources

Wiki

Toolbox