UDWiki talk:Administration/Arbitration /Kristi of the Dead vs Recruitment

Kristi of the Dead vs. Recruitment

Either you lot drop this stupid anti DEM policy about how we advertise or I want everyone that's in an organization in any capacity to be lumped together on one page how we are. That means everyone in the DA has to be on one page and everyone in the NMC and Beerhah as well. Either that or you let the DEM advertise like all these other organizations get to. I'm looking for the MCDU and AH to have their own pages. That's not so much to ask is it? I mean the Philosophe Knights get to put adds in both the PK sections and the Survivor sections. So I mean your bias against us must not have anything to do with taking up space. I can't really write Wiki policy very well and since you guys put us in this situation without ever talking to us first I'm taking the wiki to arby's.--Kristi of the Dead 01:54, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, first off, you need someone to represent "Recruitment." Perhaps a discussion at the Recruitment talk page would be in order? Anyway, I'll post a note there, even though I think this is the wrong place. Linkthewindow  Talk  05:23, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Whoops, looks like there has been quite a heated discussion there for some time. Anyway, Kirsti, how are you supposed to challange, you know a page. Arbies are designed for user-user mediation, not when people get upset over the contents on a page (unless said upsetness causes an edit war.) Linkthewindow  Talk  05:31, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm charging the entire wiki that supports the use of the recruitment page as it is written now. The unfair treatment of groups based on a policy that is selectively enforced by the wiki at large is unfair and deserves a resolution.--Kristi of the Dead 06:04, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

You can't take the whole wiki to arbies, Kristi. Name the main ones enforcing this on the recruitment page (and they can choose one or more representative/s), pick an independent arbitrator, and then move on to making your cases -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 00:40 20 November 2008 (BST)

Iscariot is the do nothing in charge of that page. Good luck getting him to do anything.--Kristi of the Dead 03:24, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

This isn't exactly what I meant. Anyway, the question that needs to be addressed is where to draw the line on what is an individual group. The thing that's the major sticking point would probably be the fact that membership is interdependent in the DEM, the 3 character rule causes that and the secrecy of the group/s makes it very difficult to differentiate between them from the outside. That being said none of this would be an issue if the content rules were less rigid, there is no reason why the DEM shouldn't be able to include small ads for all of it's groups in it's recruitment ad but with the content limits now that is quite impossible. Maybe if we went back to an older system?--Karek^maps?! 06:53, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

We're looking to get the MCDU, and AH their own recruitment pages as well as any group that joins our organization from here on out. The point is either you enforce the rule fairly across the board with no more of this everyone is ok but the DEM crap or you let us have two new free pages 1 for AH and 1 for the MCDU (though in truth the made up problem of crowding on the recruitment page was designed to punish survivor groups like the DEM and the DHPD so I'd like to see it done away with entirely). By the letter of the rule there's plenty of organizations that should be forced to have one page but aren't this rule is selectively enforced and when it is enforced it is unfair and punishing to us. Because now when an organization joins the DEM they have to give up their ad. That's not fair and it's a penalty you've pushed on the DEM to the exclusion of all others here on the wiki. Also the 3 character rule has nothing to do with this...the DA has no alt rules at all and yet they're a ok to post as many recruitment ads as they want. And in fact I charge that it is the wiki that is responsible for much of the confusion with the DEM and its member groups. By forcing us all to advertise together you insinuate that we are not separate groups. It's easier for people to say that we aren't because of this unfair policy made for not so good faith reasons. --Kristi of the Dead 03:24, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't enforce the rules there at all, it's a user made and user moderated page. I'm trying to help you out here by proposing something I think would be a more than appropriate compromise and would actually lead to all of your member groups having their recruitment ads group together with each other inside of a larger ad. That being said, if the DA is being allowed to do this and you aren't then there certainly is something wrong with that.--Karek^maps?! 17:37, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry Karek I didn't mean to insinuate that you did run the page sorry for that. I'm sorta used to us arguing about things and had assumed your opinion to be one way when it was the the other. Look I'm just after a fair resolution to this situation. Something that Iscariot has been unwilling or unable to do for whatever reason. But as the rule stands now the DEM is being unfairly targeted with this rule to the exclusion of all others. And there are plenty of other organizations that need to be forced to do the same thing we are but aren't being forced to do such. Mostly as a result of the real reason the rule was written in the first place combined with Iscariots inability to separate his PK character from his Wiki persona that rules the recruitment page. I like your idea Karek...anything that is more fair than the current system would be appreciated. The entire rule is biased against the DEM as was its purpose. It's not being enforced on others it seems it was a special rule made up to punish groups that want to join the DEM. Which is unfair. I want it gone, modified, or apply to all other organizations in the game.--Kristi of the Dead 02:59, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Also, the alt rule is relevant only for the reason that it's a recruitment page, it would be foolish of you not to mention it considering that it would restrict whether or not some people could join the group at all. That makes it relevant but, just barely so. --Karek^maps?! 17:37, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

If they already have a DEM member in our group then they are already aware of the 3 alt rule and as such it doesn't really apply.--Kristi of the Dead 02:59, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

I've just noticed this case. My internets are broken at the moment so it'll be a while before I can properly begin it. However, as one of the two maintainers of the Recruitment page (the other having recently left the wiki) I will accept this case. I was going to recommend a friendly arbitration case to let a third party end the discussion, but since Kristi wants to get all legalistic and leave unfriendly messages on my talkpage, I will now take this case on in my usual wiki manner. I will represent the recruitment section and will participate fully in this debate on the following two conditions:

1. The DEM is named in this case in place of Kristi and we understand that the ruling will apply to all members of the DEM, all subgroups of the DEM and their members.
2. Arbitrator selection is put on hold until my interwebs are all fixed. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 10:48, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Pffft. You've been little but hostile since the moment this discussion began months ago. And your paragraph #1 is rather a transparent attempt to use the interrelation of some DEM groups -- which by Kristi's petition are not even subject to this case -- to make a case for disallowing what she is asking for. If your internet access is a problem, perhaps Whitehouse should represent Recruitment in a truly "friendly arbitration case". -- Atticus Rex ^{mfu pif} Δ 17:01, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

EDIT: Great. Whitehouse really is gone. -- Atticus Rex ^{mfu pif} Δ 17:05, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Wow surprise surprise Iscariot is out to do nothing yet again. How about while we're at it we vote this useless guy off the recruitment page entirely. You don't make the terms of the case Iscariot. In fact if you don't get off your ass we'll move on without you. I mean I've done nothing but ask you for help and in return I've gotten no response. I much prefer whitehouse to you as he actually does his job. If your internets is so spotty perhaps you should go back to being a normal user. In regards to you number 1 above This ruling should apply to the entire recruitment page not just to one ORGANIZATION and its member groups(ie not just the DEM). If it applies to the DEM then it should for fairness sake apply to all organizations such as the DA and others. That's the point no more of this "lets treat the DEM like crap because we can" stuff.--Kristi of the Dead 02:56, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

As it says above, Whitehouse has left the wiki. Any other people who would want to represent Recruitment in this case that you know of, Krisit? Linkthewindow  Talk  00:13, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

The reason I request that the DEM be named is for the same reason the Recruitment page is named, we do not want to be going through this process for every member of your group. Provided you agree to this, I will accept The Hierophant, Wan Yao or Suicidalangel as they are familiar with large groups and I consider them to be impartial. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 13:02, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

The Hierophant(Lord Moloch) is a lot of things, in this case impartial isn't one of them.--Karek^maps?! 13:05, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

I am willing to be the arbitatortot and/or person in charge of wishing death upon Iscariot. Seriously, fuck off and die. If I ever met your mother I'd punch her in the ovaries until they turned into dust so that she could never poison the world again with a failspawn such as yourself. You're an idiot and a failure at a human being. Do everyone around you a favor and choke to death. --Sonny Corleone ^{DORIS MSD pr0n} 17:42, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Meh. I'll arbitrate. I hardly ever touch the recruitment page and have nothing against both users (or pages/groups.) However, both users should be advised that this would be my first case, so yeah... Linkthewindow  Talk  00:13, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

This case piqued my curiosity. I sneak on over to the recruitment page every now and again, and would neutrally apply logic and reason to the users involved in this case. As Linkthewindow, both Iscariot and Kristi should be advised that this would be my first arbitration. Ottari ^{DA PDA NW} Read the Dispatch! 06:34, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

It looked like discussion died off here a while ago. Speak now or I shall archive it :P. Linkthewindow  Talk  11:43, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Discussion has not died, the case was merely dormant whilst my interwebs were dead. They have now been resurrected and the case can continue. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 13:02, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Thats fine. I'll inform Kristi. Linkthewindow  Talk  06:41, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Feh, this old bullshit subject... God, when will the BS crowd give their inane politicking a rest??? Well... anyway... Just because groups share a forum doesn't make them all the same group. However, when groups are all surbordinate to one leader and/or executive "board of directors"... well... For example, unlike the DEM, there is no "president" of all Beerhah: it's just a board which includes several completely independent subgroups. There is no "president" of Barhah.com, either, just a dude who runs the board. Sorta. So those comparisons are totally invalid. However, the Dulston Alliance is a pretty tightly knit organisation as far as I can tell... so that comparison is more valid. But, of course... you know... someone has to claim the DEM are fascists... and someone else has to play the foil and claim they're persecuted... GET THEE TO AN ARBITRATION CASE! ***YAWN**** --WanYao 11:26, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Actually, me being... well... me.... put that aside for a moment ;) ... I never bother with the recruitment page... Has there actually been an edit war over this? If not, there is no cause for an Arby case. Just add AH and MCDU to the list as seperate groups. Then, and only then -- if there's an edit war over the issue -- should this come to Arbies. Otherwise, you're wasting our time. That's my two bits worth. --WanYao 11:38, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

The answer seems more straight forward. The recruitment section is meant to work with the Stats.html page, the rule should be if you show up there you can show up here.--Karek^maps?! 19:28, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

My understanding is that they are going to arbies over a long-standing dispute about this issue and to prevent an edit war. Linkthewindow  Talk  08:08, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

zerg army anyone?--xoxo 01:01, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, karek, but I can't see any direct connection between the stats page and the recruitment page. Maybe that's because there isn't any! The stats page links you the actual group page. It has nothing whatsoever to do with the Recruitment page. However, when I click on MPD and MFD, I see two pages both of which say in a very prominent place: "Branch of the DEM". Make what you want of that... --WanYao 01:42, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

That's just foolish, of course there is a connection, the game recognizes them as seprate notable groups and presents them to the players as such. Stats.html is an automated recruitment tool built before the Recruitment addition and it originally served that purpose. It's the original recruitment page.--Karek^maps?! 02:47, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

That may possibly have been true then. This, however, is now. There is no connection between the recruitment page and the stats page. As for the "Branch of the DEM" blurb on the wikis, etc., I'm merely presenting a fact. What you do with that fact -- including ignore it as unimportant and irrelevant -- is your decision. --WanYao 07:29, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

There was been a LONG discussion over at Brainstock a while back about revamping some of the terminology, to make it clearer that the DEM groups see themselves as independent entities, and part of an alliance. Due to the wiki averseness of most of the DEM members, their pages ARE rather outdated, and haven't been updated in a while. Heck, I'd tweak their pages for them, if they'd let me, but I dunno how well that would go over. ;) --Jen 15:14, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

The army, navy and airforce are all seperate branches of a nations armed forces (arguably so is the police!) but each recruits seperatly for very good reasons. I think Karek has hit upon a very simple and clear solution so why not run with it? That is a genuine question by the way so please feel free to answer it...--Honestmistake 09:37, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

1. Create 10 dummy characters.
2. Login once a week with them.
3. ???
4. Profit Recruit!

--Midianian ^{Big Brother Diary Room: [511,12]} 11:27, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

And that is different from the current situation how? Any idiot can already create dummy accounts and a group... hell if no-one checks the stats for group size you can skip the dummy account part and just go straight for the recruiting. The main problem i can see is that if a group is too small to appear on stats it will be barred from recruiting!--Honestmistake 16:31, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

So, what on earth would implementing that limit solve? Other than cutting down the number of ads by ~30%... --Midianian ^{Big Brother Diary Room: [517,12]} 17:36, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

It settles this ridiculous argument of what is and isn't a group by letting the game engine itself decide which ones are.--Karek^maps?! 02:45, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Even if it wasn't ridiculously easy to get past that limitation if you're willing to cheat, it still wouldn't be worth banning small groups off the page. These are the groups that need Recruitment the most. Oh, and that 30% wasn't a guess. Out of the 35 groups currently recruiting in Malton (or at least when I checked them yesterday), 11 wouldn't be able to do it anymore. --Midianian ^{Big Brother Diary Room: [511,13]} 11:27, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

It's really not our place to proclaim who is cheating and who isn't, that belongs in the realm of forums and groups not the wiki which has to be applied equally to everyone. If someone is zerging to make a group it's not our place to declaim zerging as illegitimate on the wiki, regardless of our personal views on the matter we have to be fair first. I'm not saying ban small groups from the page so much as that we shouldn't ban groups the game recognizes as groups from recruiting, for small groups it wouldn't change the status quo.--Karek^maps?!

So, what you're aiming at is that a group can recruit if they use their own group tags in their profiles? Why not just say it like that and leave the stats page out of this? --Midianian ^{Big Brother Diary Room: [500,14]} 00:41, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

The issue is that DEM "subgroups" that are on the stats page aren't being allowed to have recruitment ads because of a rule added specifically to prevent them from having them. Them being on the stats page lends itself to my point, that the group recognizes them as differing individual groups and as such the wiki shouldn't treat them differently than the game does because they happen to share a similar goal. It's much equivalent to if we banned all members of !zanbah or The Big Bashes from having an ad while those things were active, at least from the standpoint of how the wiki treats them it is.--Karek^maps?! 03:43, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't need a recap, I do follow things on the wiki.

Requiring them to be on the stats page is still only a round-about way of requiring that they have their own group tags in their profiles. Yes, being on the stats page could be one way to prove that, but it shouldn't be the only one (you know, like directly providing some profiles?), and thus it shouldn't be the actual rule. --Midianian ^{Big Brother Diary Room: [511,14]} 11:54, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Karek 'recapping' things is all well and good, but he's recapping the wrong thing. That's not the reason this has come to arbitration at all. You think he'd know that since he's trying to hijack the case. If he continues to go over ground that's already been covered without doing his research then I'm going to take everything from this page not from the participants (of which he is not currently one) and the volunteer arbitrators and stick this rubbish on the talk page. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 14:03, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Requiring a group to be on the stats page to be able to recruit is a completely fucking retarded -- and utterly biased and discriminatory -- idea. Basically you're killing any new group's chance to recruit and develop outside the big, independent metagame forums... Which, even the bigger ones, are mostly closed cliques, anyeay. Wow, what a great idea!! --WanYao 06:48, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Fail.--Karek^maps?! 10:25, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

Now who's being "argumentative" for it's own sake, hmmmmmn? I don't read everyone's talk pages: I read what's posted here. **yawn** --WanYao 06:46, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

And thus why I linked it, or is not repeating myself frequently being argumentative too?--Karek^maps?! 06:53, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

You see, if any other user engaged in this kind of trolling argument on an open arbitration case they'd be warned and told to take it to the talk page to stop shitting up the admin pages. Does anyone think that'll happen to Karek? Does anyone think he should know better? -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 11:32, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm trying to sort out a solution that makes sense as opposed to helping some vendetta you two have between each other. This isn't an arbitration case at this point and regardless it will not be solved here so I'm discussing a way to sort it out. You want me to be a third party, fine, I'll join the arbitration case on Kirsti's side if she'll have me simply because you don't seem to want to solve anything, you just want to enforce a rule that makes little sense and isn't being applied equally to every group.--Karek^maps?! 22:13, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

No. You've just explained, in your own words, that you're trying to arbitrate this case ("I'm trying to sort out a solution"). But you have not been accepted as an arbitrator, so butt out, karek. Actually, you can do this, and damn it I encourage you to try to negotiate a solution! But that belongs on Talk pages, not on admin pages. I have no axes to grind with either of you: I'm calling this as I see it... And, karek, if you keep shitting up this admin page by tryimg to be an unappointed abritrator, I'll be consulting whether your actions are vandalism. And Iscariot... quit being trollish. --WanYao 06:56, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

You're just being argumentative now. I'm not arbitrating, I'm trying to do something that should have been done before the case got to arbitration. In the process I'm also arguing for what I believe would be the best solution here and expressing my views on the case, which has led to me taking a side. Trying to settle a dispute isn't arbitration, it's mediation, arbitrators on UDWiki don't seem to know how to do that and you don't seem to know the difference between an interested party who happens to want to actually use the arbitration system as it is meant to be used as an intrested party in the manner they are meant to use it, I have no intention of trying to inforce some draconian ruling in this case, although technically I do/did have the means to try if I actually wished to start undoing the good precedents we/I've set regarding this page's treatment. The difference between arbitrating and starting/moving the discussion are night and day. --Karek^maps?! 10:38, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

No, I'm not merely being "argumentative", karek. You've missed my point. Which was that this discussion ought to be taking place on user and Recruitment talk pages. As it is, Iscariot actually has a point that your actions border on interfering in a non-neutral manner an abritration case which you're not a part of. It's not what you're doing -- which is laubible -- but how and where you're doing it -- which doesn't come across. to some, as "benevolently" as you might hope. Dig? --WanYao 06:39, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

That has long since ceased to be a concern of mine on this wiki, people will interpret things how their bias lets them. At this point you're only point is some trumped up claim of my arbitrating as an attempt to invalidate my participation without actually invalidating my points, it doesn't matter that the person who filed this case views what I added as an ideal result to solve the problem that led to this case on their part, and it doesn't matter that the best one to argue for something that came from my head is me. So yes, you're being argumentative and are ill informed, the discussion came here because it was blocked from going anywhere on the user and recruitment pages.--Karek^maps?! 06:49, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

It's simple, karek: what part of "take it to talk pages" don't you understand? And, as for all the name calling etc. you're engaging in... I'll leave it to others to read the thread and decide for themselves who's being "agrumentative", presumptuous and thoroughly condescending here... You just said that you don't care what others think of you. Exactly. **yawn** --WanYao 07:03, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Where is Kirsti anyway? We can't have an arbiration case without someone accusing. Linkthewindow  Talk  11:39, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

I was absent from this case for a period of time due to connection difficulties, I am more than willing to give my opponent the same grace that was given to me in order to resolve this matter. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 12:01, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Point taken. Anyone know of an alternate way to contact her. It appears she has been in a wiki-coma, but she might still be active on Brainstock. Linkthewindow  Talk  20:33, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

She's quite active on Brainstock. And I don't blame her for going into a wiki coma.

Also, I support Karek's proposal. If a group shows up on the stats page, they should be allowed to recruit. (Without it implying the vice versa...if a groups DOESN'T show up, they SHOULDN'T be allowed to recruit). Alternatively, go with "if a group has different tags in their profile from another group, and has a separate wiki page (not a sub-page), it's a separate group, and should be allowed to recruit independently." It makes more sense than the current rule, which IS being applied differently to different alliances of groups, and which has been unfairly singling out and penalizing the DEM for a long time. (The SWA, DA, and NMC have all been allowed to recruit separately, though they are part of larger alliances. The DHPD, Imperium, and RRF (all of which have been presented as groups that could start making separate advertisements, once the DEM is allowed to make separate advertisements, all have a single group tag. And the DHPD also has subpages, not independent group pages)).--Jen 15:05, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

I'll do it, i'm sick of the sporadic edits to this page plaguing my watchlist.--xoxo 11:42, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

srsly, gtfo my watchlist. pick someone to arbies lolbutsrs.--xoxo 04:45, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

It looks like we are waiting for Kristi to return from her wikicoma. Linkthewindow  Talk  04:49, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Seriously Iscariot spends paragraphs dogging Karek for making constructive suggestions that might actually help but J3D gets call us a zerg army above and then continues to spam the *gasp* admin pages and not a peep. seriously nobody cares about your watchlist--Kristi of the Dead 06:29, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Bitter, bitter. You totally misinterpreted me. I was saying that making a rule linking recruitment and stats page together could be easily overcome by a zerg army. --xoxo 06:50, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

I love Karek's idea! It would work beutifully. And would be fair which is something that's been lacking in the wiki recruitment pages for the DEM for some time now. Seriously we bring a fair number of new players into the game and teach them how to play and try to make them part of the community. Which is hard to do since from our perspective for some time now the wiki has targeted us (as far as the recruitment goes) unfairly. What I want is a fair resolution that prevent "page maintainers" from using their own judgement as often and Karek's suggestion I think would do that. A fair resolution here would prolly make it easier for me to get more DEM members to be more active in the community here on the wiki too.--Kristi of the Dead 06:08, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Tell me Kristi, did you see the arbitrators and conditions I suggested and the reasoning for them, or was it all lost in Karek's superfluous paragraphs? -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 06:48, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

To recap then; You proposed LordMoloch, Wanyao, and SA. SA is inactive, LordMoloch/TheHeirophant is leader of the RRF and one of the people who tends to refer to the DEM as a zerg group, and WanYao has already chosen a side above. You might want to work on a new list if you actually want to move the case along.--Karek^maps?! 06:56, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

That would be half of what I'm talking about, again your pointless graffiti all over this page has obscured the rest even from your eyes. Somehow I'm quite sure that Kristi knows who The Hierophant is, your attempt to influence this case by disparaging one of my potential arbitrators merely reinforces your neutrality in this matter.... -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 07:02, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't be so sure, she doesn't use the wiki much and I'm not going to give you the opportunity to use that lack against her by catchin her uninformed. You've proposed no other arbitrators on this page, you haven't even expressed an opinion on the volunteers just on how much you dislike me adding anything.--Karek^maps?! 07:13, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Your lack of reading comprehension astounds me. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 07:18, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

However, in the interest of removing excuses I'll start moving all junk not immediately related to who the arbitrator will be to the talk page. Happy?--Karek^maps?! 07:16, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Certainly not, you are already aware (and have always been) that you are in error. The fact that the other sysops would never rule against one of their own does not change the fact that had anyone else pulled the shit you have on this page they'd be escalated immediately. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 07:18, 19 December 2008 (UTC)