UDWiki:Administration/Arbitration/Finis Valorum vs J3D

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

Finis Valorum vs. Jed

In regards to this. He supports introduction of insulting POVs in the news section. The news he's bent on keeping contain a small POV reference ("more experienced groups") which the user that posted them doesn't want to change. Given this situation and wanting to keep the article neutral, I excised that section until the author would reword it. However, my changes were undid by Boxy. Pages affected: Dakerstown--Finis Valorum 12:10, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

shouldn't your case be created against J3D ? --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{[cloned] [mod]} 12:14, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

No. Jed is nothing but a random moron. It is those who encourage him that worry me.--Finis Valorum 12:22, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

This isnt how arbitration should work... but if you want to be an ass, go ahead. --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{[cloned] [mod]} 12:44, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I volunteer to Arbitrate this, whoever he decides to bring it against. -- Cheeseman ^W!RandomTalk 12:17, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Sure -- boxy ^{talk • i} 12:26 28 January 2008 (BST)

I may be random, but i am NOT a mormon. oh and i volunteer to arbitrate, while i'm here. I know random chat isn't s'pose to be on this page but he's taken to direct insults. Maybe arbitration is the answer...--Jed 12:28, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, sorry I lost my temper. Yes, my case is actually against this moron. He's introduced insulting POVs in the news section of Dakerstown. The news he inserted contain a small POV reference ("more experienced groups") which he doesn't want to change. This compromises the very neutrality of the article. Moreover, the douchebag himself admitted it was inteded as a flame bait.--Finis Valorum 12:51, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Does anyone else appreciate the irony? I'm dragged here for my "insulting POV" posts, which quote, is "Local groups have struggled with the tiny zombie population for some time however with the recent arrival of, er...more experienced groups the situation is well under control and most zombies seem to have fled." by a guy who calls me a douchebag and 'this moron' in the very post with which he intends to resolve the dispute. Do these sound like the actions of someone who wants a resolution both parties are happy with?--Jed 12:58, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes.--Finis Valorum 13:01, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Again I reiterate my Offer to Arbitrate since the the person the case is being brought against has changed. -- Cheeseman ^W!RandomTalk 13:16, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Ur fine with me.--Finis Valorum

Ok. J3D, how about you? -- Cheeseman ^W!RandomTalk 21:26, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't know if you're familiar with Finis but his sole purpose of existence is to make the lives of others as difficult as possible. I don't think Finis is genuinely interested in coming to any sort of agreement but if you're willing to waste your time on him, then sure, welcome aboard. And please, call me Jed.--Jed 05:58, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Ok. I'll get this set up just now. -- Cheeseman ^W!RandomTalk 15:33, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Finis's Statement

On January 17th 2008, User:J3D inserted the following piece of news in the Dakerstown article, news which included a POV statement: "however with the recent arrival of, er... more experienced groups the situation is well under control ..". You will notice that the reference to "more experienced groups" is deliberately emphasized. When someone complained about this, User:J3D admitted he was trying to flame the spirits. Moreover, his post violates the guideline for keeping the article neutral. Seeing this and not wanting to remove all the useful information, I've tried to alter his post into NPOV. This attempt was thwarted when User:J3D claimed impersonation, and I was left with no other choice but to remove it entirely. User:J3D continued to add it back refusing to make it NPOV. I believe preserving a blatant POV with the acknowledged intention of "stirring" (sic) in an article which, according to community guidelines, should be kept neutral, is in no way an attempt to improve the wiki.--Finis Valorum

One more thing: since User:J3D has already displayed a tendecy towards digressing, I'd recommend we all just stick to the subject.--Finis Valorum

Jed's Statement

Okay, My case primarily centres around that, while yes my post was POV it is my right to make such a post as it is a certain one of my characters (Jaaam) that is posting the news and thus the news is coming from his perspective, which coincidentally has a POV. A quick view of the Dakerstown Talk Page shows that in that suburb there is currently discussion about POV vs NPOV news posts, also the fact that despite Finis's claims the wiki has no specific rules regarding NPOV posting. Yes, some users have taken it upon themselves to ask people to only post neutral news at the top of news sections but beyond that there is no rule that prohibits me from making such a post, hence Finis was forced to bring this to arbitration, rather then VB. It is my belief that in a suburb such as Pitneybank it would be inappropriate to place POV news as that page is used as a source of information by many groups and individuals daily. However in a backwater such as Dakerstown that is characterised by its vibrant groups I think POV news posting adds character to a fairly empty district of Malton, a view that is echoed by at least 2 members of the Dakers community (once again, see the burb talk page). In regards to Finis' argument that i admitted to "trying to flame the spirits" I can only say that yes, you're right. I was stirring. I have already said that the post was made from the perspective of one of my characters who went to Dakerstown to make an impression on the suburb which would be evident through his graffiti, remarks and wiki posts. I also believe that this entire issue is none of Finis' business.

If i was straight out vandalising the page it would be his right, nay, his responsibility to step in as a concerned member of the wiki community. However considering that I was not vandalising the page (several sysop's have looked into the issue and none considered my actions vandalism), I have a history of news posts and danger level modifications to the suburb (demonstrating my active role in the Dakerstown community), the fact that Finis' Dakerstown related edits are all directly aimed at getting my posts edited or removed and that Finis and I have a history both in game and on the wiki he should stay away from my posts that are neither vandalism nor concern him rather then wasting all our time bringing me to arbitration.--Jed 10:03, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh and also would Finis be able to specifically outline what he wants from this arbitration case? You presumably want the post removed however is there anything beyond this? You really haven't specified which makes rebuttal fairly difficult. Thanks.--Jed 10:07, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Cheesy's Bit in the Middle

Right. I have now heard evidence from both sides but I'm going to give each of you a chance of a rebuttal to answer any questions raised by the opposite party and generally try and shoot their argument down. After you have each made a rebuttal, or if you choose not to let me know, then I shall make my ruling. -- Cheeseman ^W!RandomTalk 10:17, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Finis's Rebuttal

Posting POV news just to "add character to a fairly empty district of Malton" is a very poor rationale. The status of a suburb depends solely on the players and the way they interact and not by interesting wiki edits. You fail to prove the necessity of your POV. Also, roleplaying should not cross the boundaries of the game into this wiki when it comes to dealing with community resources. The game is one thing, this wiki another. As regards your editing history you take such pride in, you ommitted the fact that you have been warned, even banned, multiple times for trying to include vandalism in community pages under the guise of useful contributions. Finally, my purpose is to have your POV edited out. That and no other--Finis Valorum

Jed's Rebuttal

Okay, Finis didn't say a whole lot in his rebuttal so i won't either. Finis didn't bother addressing the fact that he had no real reason to be on the Dakerstown page other then to trawl my posts searching for something to object to. I think in the situation my posts were in and the fact that tangible and relevant information was included in the post adding POV roleplaying elements is fine.--Jed 12:01, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Cheesy's Ruling

Ok. I've seen evidence from each party and each has given a fairly valid point for consideration. Time to rule. I've looked at the Dakerstown suburb page and there is indeed a NPOV statement clearly placed at the top of the news section here. I do agree with Finis that the POV statement was out of place and that later admitting to trying to stir things up was rather stupid. However, I disagree that Finis had the right to edit the post as that clearly does count as impersonation. The best course of action would have been to leave a message of Jed's talk page telling him that his POV statement shouldn't have been there and failing that, then taken it here if you couldn't reach an agreement over it rather than Spamming the VB page with various cases against each other. Right, I think the best course of action here would be the following:

• Step 1 - Each of you is to apologise to the other for all the grief that has been caused on each side. No further comments will be made after the apologies.
• Step 2 - After that apology, neither of you is to contact the other, insult the other, or in any way try and stir up any kind of grief for one month to give each of you time to get over this and grow up a bit.
• Step 3 - The POV statement from the Dakerstown page will be either changed to reflect a NPOV, or removed by Jed. The choice of which is up to him alone. After that, I am requesting (not binding) that all further posts on the Dakerstown page are made in NPOV to avoid this happening again.

I think thats everything covered now. Thank you very much. If anyone wants to discuss this case, please use either the talk page for this case, or my own talk page. -- Cheeseman ^W!RandomTalk 12:35, 1 February 2008 (UTC)