UDWiki:Administration/Arbitration/Karek vs Nallan and J3D

Karek vs. Nick & Jed

I'm doing this before it gets too far and an edit war is at any more risk of starting. This case is in regards to the following chain of edits and this previous one, both of which are about the same content, specifically the addition of a lewd term from Urban Dictionary in the history of a frequent accessed page and a corollary page to a frequently accessed page. --Karek^maps?! 08:07, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

To Save some time a list of arbitrators I will accept in this matter are:

• Boxy
• Suicidal Angel
• Seventythree
• A Helpful Little Gnome

Other arbitrators can feel free to apply, and may be accepted, this list is just to speed up the process some in case I'm not on and am needed for the decision.--Karek^maps?! 08:07, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

seems a simple enough case. I'll put my hand up.--'BP^Tmz 09:02, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I too volunteer. --Seventythree^Talk 11:10, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I'll volunteer as well so you get a nice round 6 arbys to pick from. :) -- Cheeseman ^W!RandomTalk 14:26, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

The only arbitrator i will agree to is Grim s--Jed 14:42, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

lolque? first case! (It means pick me in all my sick and weakened glory) And Jed, please don't joke around on these official-type pages.-- dǝǝɥs oʇ ɯɐds: sʎɐʍ1ɐ! 14:48, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

'kay, but we all know this is pretty pointless. I'm happy with SA but you'll have to talk to Nick.--Jed 14:50, 27 January 2008 (UTC) EDIT: and considering its 1:50AM local time i'd say you won't here much from him for at least 9 hours.--Jed 14:51, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm biased. --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 18:09, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Wai? It's not nice to be biased...-- dǝǝɥs oʇ ɯɐds: sʎɐʍ1ɐ! 18:10, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

OK I'm happy with Suicidalangel seventythree. Let's get this train wreck-a-rollin'!--Nick 02:36, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Yup 73's fine too.--Jed 05:00, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, since ive been named (Even if in jest), i may as well say im available if wanted/needed. Also, i have nothing to do with finis. --The Grimch ^{U! E! WAT!} 04:59, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Seems pretty straight forward to me, Karek wants AHLG, SA, 73 or Boxy. I refuse Boxy (he reported me vandalising today so...no), AHLG says he's biased (not sure why, but hey, he's out). Nick wants 73 and has struckthrough SA so unless Karek's changed his mind, congrats 73 you won. :D (i would do that party smiley guy but don't know how)--Jed 05:05, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Whatever, all the arbitrators you two have named so far are fine with me. So I guess it's whoever starts the Arbitrator work first. --Karek^maps?! 05:30, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

No, I want 73. No one else.--Nick 05:33, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

:(.-- dǝǝɥs oʇ ɯɐds: sʎɐʍ1ɐ! 11:26, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Shame, Suicidal Angel would be good.....--Seventythree^Talk 11:30, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

O.K then, let's get this started. For anyone who doesn't know the rules, both sides of the case are allowed to post an opening statement, with Karek to go first as he bought the case. After both opening statements are made both sides then get a chance to make a rebuttal, then I make a ruling. While making cases links to relevent info are handy for me (so I don't have to run around trying to find what you're talking about), also I've seen you all around, so I'm sure I don't have to remind you, but personal insults and stuff of that nature don't realy have a place here. Anyone not directly invlvoed in the case can always leave messages on the talkpage, and if anyone desparately needs to contact me with anything I usualy read my talkpage.--Seventythree^Talk 09:54, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

sounds fine. my only concern is any disagreement between nick and i. we talk on msn (i'm sure you've all gathered) so most stuff posted will be a shared view but in the unlikely event of any disagreements i think you should hear from both of us prior to assuming a shared view.--Jed 11:42, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I assumed that you two where pretty much in agreement. O.K, if you want to, you can both supply two seperate arguments under the Nick and Jed's heading. It's been done before I beleive, in similar cases, and makes sense.--Seventythree^Talk 11:45, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Yeah we will be (in agreement). Just in case though, ya know. I'm a bit paranoid like that...--Jed 12:17, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

No, fair enougth. Better that this gets dealt with properly now, rather than hang around for weeks.--Seventythree^Talk 12:41, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Karek's Case

After a short delay due to some wiki drama I'm here, so lets start this bitch._{it will be nice to be able to have a decent reasoned debate instead.}

Preamble of Ramble

I'll start this off with what I want done and noted, and what I do not want done. The point and goal of this arbitration case is to show and set the precedent that lewd and vulgar article content is not acceptable by the community in major accessed pages, this means nothing like what started this case and nothing that can be considered vulgar(or Adult) language, we are a website for an online game, an online game without an age limit that does actively censor what is said inside of it(case in point Radio Broadcasts are censored). What I do not want in this case is punishment of any sort for Nallan and J3d, they have not committed vandalism and should not be punished for that, they should not be banned from any pages or such, this is purely a dispute over acceptable article content.

The Dispute

Humor is good and fine, but certain things are taking it to far. On a public wiki, like the Urban Dead wiki, that is accessible to people of all ages, lewd and vulgar content should be extremely limited in it's usage, specifically NOT on the high profile pages that most users see, such as Suburb pages. Edits like this one are far from acceptable, any reference to Urban Dictionary alone is obviously unacceptable. I am not the only user with this opinion.

Even without the reference something like what was added to the Cockburn Plaza Railway Station page is absurd. Locations pages should not have overly blatant references to sexual acts in their description. Kids Play This Game, Kids Edit This Wiki.

I really don't know what else there is for me to say on this matter other than those edits were obviously unacceptable from the start and writing them alone shows very poor judgement, jokes like that should be kept off of major wiki pages.--Karek^maps?! 00:22, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Nick & Jed's Case

Sorry this has taken so long to get going, Nick and I have been busy in RL (back at school for the year) and as he live 150km's apart its hard to co-ordinate.

Firstly, Karek mentions the older edit to the New Arkham page. Me and Nick feel this issue has already been resolved as we allowed the edit to be undone. Therefore, the edit will not be considered part of this case. And, as Karek mentioned, the urban dictionary link was also removed, so this will be disregarded too.

Now to our case:

Karek stated that "The point and goal of this arbitration case is to show and set the precedent that lewd and vulgar article content is not acceptable by the community in major accessed pages". If this arbitration case is only relevant to major accessed pages then Nick and I agree that lewd and vulgar content is inappropriate. While in the past i have made what could be considered vulgar posts on such pages, with increased wiki-experience my views on what is appropriate has changed, Nick feels the same way.

However, Nick and I do not agree with such a precedent being set for all pages, including userpages, talkpages, group pages and any page which is not an important community resource page, this would include location pages such as Cockburn Plaza Railway Station. Considering that much of the traffic visiting this page is from the ALiM page (which categorically lists vulgar location names and which Karek has said he accepts as humour), I believe such content should remain intact, as anyone who can deal with the ALiM page can deal with such descriptions. In line with this, the locations Nick and I have added such descriptions to are almost always stubs with nothing of note but the location map and occasionally a year old barricade status report. We feel our additions on such pages add to the wiki without compromising important game related details, and, in general, improve the character of and information on said pages - the one in question being a prime example of this.

Another point to take note of is that there are so many occurrences in urban dead (both in game and on the wiki) of material which some would deem inappropriate either for their own sake or because children use these resources. People's names (e.g. in game: a big black dildo), user names on the wiki (e.g. User:An extremely pissed of user and User:Bangadouche), group names (e.g. Cheap Ass Corpses/Cheap Ass Survivors, Ed's Bitch's/Ed's Bitches, You Bastards), uncensored radio broadcasts (yes, F UCK still says FUCK, and so many so called "inappropriate" words get by), graffiti (see previous), ... I mean how could a picture of bouncing tits stay on the wiki when a page that mentions a sperm bank ("OH NO, COVER THEIR EARS!!!!") gets taken to arbitration for "vulgar article content". Why should the page in question be censored so severely seeing as it is that much tamer than a lot of other stuff on this wiki? Besides, any children young enough to be harmed by the vague content won't understand the implications of what they are reading anyway. Children who do understand it hear and see much worse at school and on the internet. None of the topics eluded to are mentioned directly, only discreetly and in good humour.

To finish off, I'll reiterate Nick's initial response to the article being wiped:

"I can see why some people may think that the history section wasn't really accurate (EDIT: this term is used loosely as everything about every location's history is fictional), but honestly, couldn't you have at least replaced the section with your own ideas, or changed it slightly or basically anything besides deleting the entire thing without contributing yourself. Surely having the page with some kind of flavour on it is better than it becoming yet another stub on the wiki. I really feel that my writing could have stayed, in the name of making the wiki a more interesting place to navigate and giving locations a bit of atmosphere rather than a page with nothing but subheadings. Some people may have even got a laugh out of it, who knows? Places like this lend themselves to creative descriptions and histories like the one you deleted.

Now don't get me wrong, I don't want to get into an edit war that gets taken to arbitration or some crap, but I don't appreciate my efforts being off-handedly wiped without explanation like that. This is why I am appealing to you directly instead of simply adding it back on without explanation. Please get back to me ASAP."

Karek's Rebuttal

Location pages are important community resources and are subject to, pretty much, all the same rules as Suburb pages. The additions to the Cockburn Railway Station page in no way improved the quality and only existed to satiate your sick humor. It doesn't belong on a page like that and attempting to redefine what are major wiki pages to make such an exception and excuse is absurd. There is also significant difference between a mention of a sperm bank and a mention of vigorously masturbating until the point of "penal death" All the innuendo stacked into the description just shows the lack of any real addition beyond that. The mention of a sperm bank had nothing to do with this case, and you know it, although, that alone is pointless to have on the page as there is no such thing in Malton so it's compromises the Neutrality and Verifiability of the page for the sake of your RP amusement.

Oh, and your quoted section is amusing, because you've had warning and discussion on this exact thing before, which was the whole point of the New Arkham edit being brought up. You know full well what you did was well beyond the bounds of acceptable editing. I am not bound to create new content for that page, nor will I as that's best left up to the Lexicon editors who do that type of thing instead of me who focuses most of his edits on actual content pages like Barricades and the wiki help pages(although lately wiki drama has pulled me away from those).--Karek^maps?! 04:01, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Nick & Jed's Rebuttal

"...vigorously masturbating until the point of "penal death"" - however hilarious, this isn't and never has been written anywhere on the page, your use of inverted commas is nothing more than an attempt to vilify us for something we didn't say.

So you say that "Location pages are important community resources" yet you refuse to create a description and history for Cockburn Plaza Railway Station because you "[focus] most of [your] edits on "actual content pages" like Barricades and the wiki help pages". This seems somewhat contradictory. However, we agree with some of your sentiments, that is that pages like Barricades are more important than single block location pages, hence it is location pages that we feel can appropriately have humorous fictional histories.

I disagree with your comments on how it "in no way improved the quality" of the page. It gave the location an interesting and descriptive history - something which no one else in the history of the wiki has ever done for this location. And how do you know there's no such thing as sperm banks in Malton? Maybe there's some outside the quarantine zone. Or maybe there used to be before the outbreak after which they all became hospitals, NTs or regular buildings. You don't know. No one does. Hence the fictional nature of the Urban Dead universe - present and past.

To finish off, we only want to add some character to the more bizarrely named and stubby location pages, and as most traffic is from ALiM, and given the very name(s) which the location(s) were given by Kevan himself, we think we should be allowed to do so. I mean to be honest the page is relatively unimportant and of little interest without the history we composed.

We believe this adds to the wiki's overall value provided it doesn't interfere with important info, which we have and always will be certain to ensure that it doesn't.--Nick 09:08, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Arbiter's Ruling

Firstly, you have to understand that I am not in any way passing judgement on the humour of the article. I am also not saying that there is no place for the occasional joke in a location page, and indeed I would be very surprised if the cockburn railway station page didn't have a couple of innuendo based jokes somewhere!

However, I do have to agree with Karek that blatant reference to sexual acts is over the line. Hinting to the fact that a sperm bank occupied the location before the railway station was constructed is fair enougth. Going on about the lack of stimulating materials and how that caused the "cock burn" rash goes rather off topic (and surely we're talking about a type of friction burn here?), and does, unfortunaltey cross the line of taste and decency. This is due to the explicitness of the joke itself, not because it is a sex-based joke. If a wiki page described, in detail a method of extreme violence I would be unhappy with that as well, probably more so. As a rule of thumb, try not to write anything you would not be happy with a moderetly inteligent 13 year old reading.

In conclusion, double entendres are O.K, as is the occasional innuendo based joke in the history part of some of the locations pages. Jokes reffering to blatant graphical representations of sexual acts are not o.k though. So, this sentance is ok:

Cockburn Plaza was, prior to the erection of the railway station, known for its famous sperm bank, which was the subject of many an immature joke at the nearby Woolford Boulevard School in Foulkes Village.

But this sentence is not:

The sperm bank was renowned for its lack of "stimulating materials", resulting in the common rash known as cock burn.

It's the difference between that vaugely annoying picture/animation of a bouncing pair of breasts and a picture of a naked woman. While the first is allowed, though certain people may find it tasteless and vaugely sexist the second would obviously not be allowed.

Seeing as Karek does not wish to present a counter-article I will be constructing a more acceptable version of the article based on previous edits to the page. If, after that Karek, Jed or Nick wish to create a different version, they can. As long as, of course they stick to the guidelines I've put down here. --Seventythree^Talk 15:20, 15 February 2008 (UTC)