UDWiki:Administration/Arbitration/Iscariot vs Boxy

St. Iscariot versus Boxy

Over the edits to a group page that Boxy is not part of. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 01:27, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

From Talk:S.O.S., because I don't feel like repeating myself -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 01:34 21 December 2008 (BST)

---

None of the above signatures seem to be supporting the "strike", so they don't belong on the main page -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 01:08 21 December 2008 (BST)

Fact - Group page, you have no right to edit according to you whims. Fact - They haven't been removed already by the group, as you know under wiki tradition, silence implies consent. Fact - Take it to vandal banning, and watch yourself lose. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 01:10, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Fact, you yourself, being not a member of the "group", don't have the right to carry on abusive arguments on their main page. You take it to A/VB, and see how you go -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 01:12 21 December 2008 (BST)

Fact - The section implies that 'opinions' may be added and they have not already been removed by the group when they have been editing the page since. That implies consent. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 01:14, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

And your insistence that it's a group page implies much more strongly that it's asking for opinions from supporters of the general concept, no abusive commentary from all and sundry -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 01:23 21 December 2008 (BST)

That would be your opinion, the fact is that the page owners have allowed these comments and not already removed them, therefore, inaction implies consent. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 01:24, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Much more likely that they don't understand wiki policy in this regard, and don't want to get in trouble for removing others posts -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 01:28 21 December 2008 (BST)

Wouldn't the correct course of action been to ask them, rather than assume intent and unilaterally impose your will on the wiki? -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 01:31, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

---

Given the way that it had turned into an abusive discussion, no, besides which, I've stopped taking out only the sigs now, and only the discussion, which obviously belongs on the talk page, and have already contacted the original author long ago -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 01:34 21 December 2008 (BST)

Note, by this point Boxy had reverted the page twice whilst this case had been open, displaying complete disregard for the established precedents of arbitration. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 01:37, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

I note that the only reason you brought this case was to get your version to be the one left on the page. You made no attempt to make your case here, you didn't even give a link to the page in question, instead leaving it up to me to bring the facts of the discussion here. As far as I'm concerned, there is no contention in an edit that removes continued and abusive discussion from someone's main page and places it on the talk page. It's pure common courteously -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 01:44 21 December 2008 (BST)

My case was clear enough for you to follow. Also your comment implies that you are aware that you should not have continued to revert the page, that says it all about sysop conduct. I am not maintaining my edit, I am maintaining the wishes of the group owners until such time it is made clear to me that they do not want the content there. Your attempts to moderate the content of others' pages is telling. You may now select arbitrator choices, I will not accept any past or present sysop or Sonny. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 01:48, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Continued discussion from within votes and other lists is routinely moved to the talk page, especially when it gets off topic enough to turn into slanging matches about people being zerging scumfucks. You wikilawyering this to preserve your abusive comments on the main page is bad faith, IMO -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 01:52 21 December 2008 (BST)

If it's bad faith you should be taking this to A/VB for a witch hunt. As for sysops knowing policy, hahahahahahahahahaha -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 01:56, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

So, who do you want as arbitrator, Iscariot? Let me guess, no sysops (they know too much about wiki policy for you to wikilawyer around, eh) -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 01:53 21 December 2008 (BST)

I routinely accept Wan Yao or Suicidal Angel, SA is inactive, so I'll select Wan Yao. Objections? -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 01:56, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

No problem here -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 01:58 21 December 2008 (BST)

If you're both still in agreement, I'll take this. However, it may surprise you to know that I'm a virgin -- so please go easy on me!! ;P

This is how I want to proceed: I'm going to ask for the usual opening statements -- first from Iscariot, followed by boxy -- to get this rolling. After that, there will be short "intermission" during which I may have some questions to ask, etc. I'm also going to try to contact the original creator of the page for a comment, to be posted after the opening statements have been made. I may then go straight to rebuttals followed by a decision, or I may modify the standard procedure if it seems more appropriat. I'll inform you of anything non-routine before it happens. Thanks. --WanYao 04:30, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

For the record: the creator of the page has been asked to make a statement or three in this case. --WanYao 05:03, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Act I: Opening Statements

St. Iscariot

Wow, I'd forgotten what actually getting to arbitration looks likes thanks to the rest of the sysop team.

Now, firstly I'd like to express my displeasure that the signatures were again removed from the page after (rather than before as Hagnat claims, the logs are clear) the page was protected. Not only are the protections guidelines clear (the page should be protected as is when the request is reviewed) but the arbitration condition (that the controversial edit should be removed) has also been ignored. The controversial edit was clearly Boxy's, the removal of section of a group page when he was not a member of that group, but yet again Hagnat decides he will moderate this wiki as he sees fit, ignoring precedence and policy because it suits him.

EDIT: Whilst writing this opening statement I see that it has now been changed to the correct difference, all it took was a couple of thousand words and a misconduct case....

On with the case...

This case concerns Boxy's removals and reversions to his preferred edit of the signatures section of the S.O.S. page.

If we look at page history logs, we can see that his first removal was accompanied with the justification "Signatures ===> talk page. the main page is not a place for this type of critisism (sic)".

This statement is clearly opinion. Nowhere in any policy or guideline does it say that there may not be criticism to a group on their page. Therefore it is not the content that can be the reason for justifiable removal. The only other thing it can be under the page ownership rules, where he is removing content made by people who are not members of a group. Again this must be fallacious, otherwise I will see Boxy present his research that every signatory on that page did not have at least one alt in the S.O.S. movement.

It has been set by precedent time and again that edits may be made to another group's page with their consent by people. Simply, it's their page, their rules. The God Emperor, a contributor to that page set up the Signatures section. Both he and the page's creator have been editing since the first of those signatures went up. It is therefore reasonable to assume that they wanted the content there, or at the very least did not mind it. Boxy will of course present that they did not know whether or not they could remove other people's posts, two points on this. Firstly the correct course would have been to ask the group whether they wanted the content and to inform them that they could remove it. It was incorrect to make an assumption of their views and edit accordingly. Secondly, if you look at the talk page, you can see The God Emperor asking if there are any objection to him removing a trolling comment. This expresses that he knows he can remove comments and is asking for other opinions of his fellow members before doing so.

The other major point is that the page is fluid, with the members reacting to the posts of their critics, it is reasonable to assume the content was intentionally left to serve as a base for these revisions. Under this point it is clear that it is Boxy undermining the movement, by making their points look baseless.

Finally, the future of the page is not a concern to me, the page owners may decide whether the content should be there or not, subject of course to standard wiki policy, the concern is the actions of Boxy. Entering into an edit war, reverting whilst an arbitration case is open and making blind assumptions about other users and editing pages he has no right to is hardly behaviour that should be associated with a wiki citizen, let alone a trusted user. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 07:21, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Boxy

• Originally I decided to remove the whole section, my reasoning was;

  The section in question asked for signatures, and thus implied signatories who were willing to endorse the document, in other words it was placed there with the intent of being a petition. Anime understood this with his opening signature, saying nothing, pretending to support, with the zing in the sig. But it quickly got less and less subtle until posts like "I just took a really wicked shit. Why didn't I get XP for it? Kevan, FIX THE POOP MECHANIC!!!", "this idea just sucks. like you do" and "BAAAAAAAAAAAWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW. Suck it up and play. Zombies in On Strike had it worse than you do now, pathetic bastards." were being posted in the guise of being signatories, by people with no affiliation with the page, and directed at the authors and supporters. While I agree with their sentiments, and said similar on the talk page myself, abusing groups or individuals on their own main pages has never been allowed (even in the NPOV section), and in cases where groups encouraged discussion with their oposition/enemy (as opposed to opinions from supporters of the basic premise) on their own page (which I can't see happening here), they have been advised to move such sections to their talk page.

  The whole section had turned into basically people opposed to the whole premise of the page trolling for n00bs, causing at least one A/VB case. Such trolling should never be done on main group or policy pages, it is obviously what talk pages where made for. Edits by non-members/supporters to group/policy pages should only be editing it with a view to improve it, not to abuse it's supporters.

• When it became obvious that Iscariot had a major problem with it, I decided to only take out the ongoing commentary and leave it on the talk page (which he also objected to) because;

  It was supposed to be a list of signatories, even if dissenting opions were to be recorded. Having an ongoing discussion in the middle of a list of signatories is ridiculous, and exactly what the talk page was for.

  It was turning into an abusive flame war, again suitable only for group/policy talk pages.

  It had already strayed well off the topic and into an arguement about zerging, again suitable only for group/policy talk pages.

• I don't agree with the claim that the page owners failure to remove the section in the early stages implies consent for the continual taunts and abuse of other member/supporters of the group/policy. Removing other peoples signed comments is a tricky business, even for experienced wiki users (as proven by this very case). Most users don't fully understand group/policy ownership rights and a/vb precident, and so usually either try to ignore it, or over-react and get reported on A/VB. People like Iscariot play on this to bully those they disagree with.

• If this was meant to be a section that included people who disagree with the policy/group, they would have put in something like a policy rejectors section, rather than just asking for sigatures. If you look at the list of in-game policies, you'll see that the vast majority of them only have supporting sigatories on the page, and none of them "voting sections" open for people to abuse supporters. Basically, unless specifically told otherwise, you don't sign documents that you don't agree to abide by. It's common sense, as is not allowing people to be abused on their own main page.

• If the owner turns up and definately wants it there, then I'd advise against it (it will only get uglier), but it's up to him.

Intermezzo

Ok, thanks.

Right now, I am going to wait for another 48 hours or so for LucasBlack to respond. In regards to that possible response, I want to make something clear: I will consider his statements important and will definately take them into consideration; however, LucasBlack's comments will not necessarily be decisive to my decision. Cross-examination will end when I'm good and ready for it to end! :P

That's all for now. --WanYao 18:19, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Act II: Cross-examination

We're done waiting for Lucas Black. It doesn't look like he's going to show.

I have a least one question to ask. I might have more questions before moving on to Closing Statements. Cross-examination will end when I am good and ready for it end! ;P

Please try to keep answers as brief and to the point as possible.

After each question is answered -- if it's directed to only one party -- the other party may offer a concise rebuttal.

My first question is directed to Iscariot:

• Much of your argument seems to revolve around S.O.S. being a group page. Can you please back up this assertion that S.O.S. is a group page - and not, as Boxy argues, more akin to Policy or "Issue/Movement" page? (Answer below)

I do not argue that this page is a group page at all. I accept that it is. It is the community that has decided that such pages are group pages and not event/policy pages.

The editors to this page clearly make reference to their self comparison to the On Strike group. Which template is at the top of that page? Is it the Historical Event template? Or is it the Historical Group page?

This page is a group page because the community and administration team have agreed through continued popular consensus that such page will be considered to be group pages and that it's owners and maintainers will enjoy the same protections and privileges as group pages.

Whether S.O.S. is a group by the standard definition in the game is not the question, the community views the manner in which it is set up and presented as different to something like the Sacred Ground Policy (a ideological movement without page ownership rights) and more akin to On Strike, The Second Big Bash and Mall Tour 07. This is reinforced by all of the aforementioned groups' entry into the Historical Groups' category, a process that requires approval from the community.

Such perceptions of the community are reinforced by the precedent on A/VB as ruled by the administration team. I cite this case as establishing the relevant precedent. Terminal Failure altered the target orders of the Bash to a different building. Had this been a public page, such as the Sacred Ground Policy or a suburb page describing revive points it would not have been ruled vandalism. Even though the Bash was much more of a movement than it ever was a group, the page was supported in its rights to be a group page for the purposes of this wiki. S.O.S. is no different in this regard, and as the Bash page was protected against unwanted edits by someone who was not a member of the group, S.O.S. should be the same in regards to Boxy's unwarranted censorship.

Am I right in believing that this section is only for use in answering the question set by the arbitrator and not for rebutting me opponent's opening statement? Will an opportunity to respond to my opponent's opening statement come later?

-- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 05:16, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it makes much difference whether it's a group page or a policy/event page, in either case, unless specifically asked for, opponents shouldn't be posting insulting opinion pieces on the main page. The whole purpose of the main page in either case is to give information on the subject, from it's point of view (except for the NPOV section). Opponents to it can mock or insult it on their own main pages (there are many examples of satirical groups set up to mock some movement or other), or the talk page.

I will say that this isn't a black and white case however, because this page is like a combination of the On Strike page (which is only the "group" side of the movement) and Stanstock page (the event/policy side of the movement). Notice how On Strike has a link to a petition... obviously if you go there and sign, you should do so to show support -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 06:04 24 December 2008 (BST)

Act III: Closing Statements

I don't have any further questions.

Please make you concluding statements below.

Lucas Black's statement

First of all, sorry for the time it took me to answer this. I'm traveling because of the holidays. I'm not really up on what one is or isn't supposed to do vis-a-vis editing pages. The signature line was set up in response to someone's suggestion that it would be a good way for people to show support. I didn't set it up myself; another member did, but it was something I would have done if the other person hadn't seen the suggestion before I did. It was intended for support and not for flames. Around that time, I became aware that the search rates had been changed and this I felt the reason for S.O.S. to exist was no longer valid - the game was back in balance. The signature line did attracted only flames, which annoyed me, but I didn't bother to remove them - in part because I wasn't sure I was supposed to. I would rather they be gone, frankly, or at least moved to the talk page. I'm a big boy and I don't mind being flamed, but I thought that some of those comments were not necessary. I removed a comment I had made on the page (one about 'pissy comments' by Zombie players) because someone objected after all. I did not set up S.O.S. as 'my' group - I was the originator, but hoped that many others would join and it would become a group effort so I didn't think I 'owned' the page, at it were. I left it to develop organically and solicited others to help. If you are asking me what I'd like to see, I'd like to see those comments made under signatures removed and put on the talk page, but I won't be bent out of shape no matter what the outcome. Merry Christmas to all and thanks to everyone concerned for your attention.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Lucas Black (talk • contribs) 13:02, 24 December 2008 . (WanYao 19:31, 24 December 2008 (UTC) )

Thanks for the statement, Lucas. I understand many of us have holiday obligations: I just wanted to keep the Arbitration moving. Habbah Barhanagah! ;P --WanYao 19:32, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

St. Iscariot's concluding statement

I will firstly respond to the Boxy's opening statement:

• The notion of "n00bs being trolled" is ridiculous. The A/VB case he brought was unconnected to the signatures and was a case of impersonation on the talk page. There are other and funnier pages to troll n00bs on this wiki (I personally suggest Fort Creedy).
• Removing the commentaries to the votes still exceeds the implied wishes of the page owner. They had edited whilst the page had been up there. They had not removed the section. They imply approval of its placement.
• Boxy disagreeing with silence implying consent is not my concern. Wikipedia (which the principles of this resource is based on) is clear: Silence implies Consent. Boxy's ignorance of this basic wiki document does not however form my point (at least in this case), the basic understanding that editing your page and not removing something does logically imply that you mean or at least do not object to its presence there. The history of the RRF details their defeat at Caiger. By Boxy's logic this can be removed as it disagrees with the rest of the history of the group and they might not know they can remove it. Such logic is flawed. Group pages should only be edited by page owners, unless given permission to add content (in this case to a specific section, note, none of the critics added content outside of this area). Boxy was at no point given permission to remove any content.
• The notion of people disagreeing with then proposal having there own section is disproved with a quick tour through the wiki.

Secondly my opponent's response to the arbitrator questions:

• The opinion of my opponent that the page "wasn't the place" for those opinions is irrelevant. It's not his page, he has no rights to be making judgement calls on that. If he objects to the content, he could easily contact the page owner regarding his concerns.
• I disgree with my opponent's indication that this isn't a black and white case. It is. It is a group. This is evidenced by the page. It is also evidenced by the fact we are only calling the page originator rather than the person who added the signatures section - if it was a community page then his opinions and intentions in setting up this section would be valid and open to cross examination.

Thirdly, Lucas Black's statement:

• How easy was that to achieve? See how we asked for his opinion and then received it? Why did we have to go through this case and the edit war and the protections argument? I do hope that Lucas will keep the section on the talk page, but it is his prerogative, not mine. It is not my prerogative to decide the content of those pages, no more than it was my opponent's when he decided to remove the section.

Finally, my concluding statement: As I believe I have demonstrated, contrary to what the back-seat attempts of Hagnat seek to imply, this case was never about misconduct of a sysop or page content, it was about user rights to edit those pages belonging to a different group.

I do not believe either myself or Boxy (though my opponent is welcome to state otherwise) were ever or are looking for an escalation or ban, simply we are in disagreement over the correct procedure of page editing. I maintain that I was correct to restore deleted content removed by a page user. The final decision remains with Lucas Black. However did it really need this case, a debate on A/P, an edit war? All it needed was a quiet note on Lucas' talk page saying that Boxy disagreed with the content and the wiki allowed him to remove it if he so wished. I'd point out that Boxy only contacted Lucas after the edit war began. This to me is the problem, a good faith user would be happy to wait for a response from the page owner, Boxy was not. Such behaviour in flagrant violation of wiki guidelines and policies can not be endorsed.

The correct response would have been for Boxy to await the response to his talk page message and allow Lucas to remove the section. The simple fact is, he did not. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 18:06, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Boxy's concluding statement

This whole case is unbelievable, really. Iscariot is trying to claim to be fighting for the owners right to choose the content that is on their own page. But where was he when these people were posting abusive comments on the main page of a group (one they were obviously opposed to), totally without permission from the page owner? Where was he to demand that they ask for permission, from the owners, to edit the page before doing so in such a way?

It's a laughable stance.

Our page ownership guidelines and precedents are quite clear in regards to group pages. The only reasons that non members should edit them is to change the NPOV section (not relevant here), if they have been given clear permission to do so by the owner , or to make clearly good faith edits to the page to improve it.

Neither I, nor those who posted the abuse on the page, received specific permission to edit the page. The signature section was asking for signatures of support. The page owners didn't need to specify that the signatures need to be from supporters, because, unless specifically stated otherwise in the header, signatures should be assumed to be supporting a document they are attached to. It's just common sense that a movement like this would be asking for supporters to show their support, not for opponents to take it as an open invitation to abuse and taunt.

Given that none of those abusive "signatures" were wanted edits, and quite frankly most (if not all) of them should probably be seen as vandalism, my edits were clearly done in a good faith attempt to improve the article, and put it back to the way that the page owners would have wanted it.

As to Iscariot's wikipedia link, not only isn't this wiki the wikipedia, neither has any silence and consensus policy even been discussed here to my knowledge. Besides which, the author has made it quite clear that that section wasn't intended for open abuse, and that part of the reason he didn't remove it was that he was unsure of whether he could. That much should have been obvious to any user of the wiki who was looking to improve the page in good faith. The user who actually added the signatures sections had also made it clear that the trolling should have been removed almost a fortnight before my intervention, but his polite request was ignored.

The God Emperor said:

Lastly, you really should remove your trolling signature. A little maturity goes a long way. 16:01, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

Not all users are confident enough in their knowledge of wiki policy, nor do they want to go against a mob, once it has formed. Does that mean that their pages are to be open to this kind of takeover attempt? Does that mean that I have to chase around getting answers from people to check that what I asked about get's followed up on if the page owner is inactive, or doesn't answer their talk page?

No, I saw an obvious case of a group/policy page being hijacked, so I acted. Perhaps I should instead of taken a number of those taking the page over to A/VB instead? But I don't believe in being overly litigious (perhaps that should change). Perhaps it would have been quicker to get an answer from the talk page, but only because of Iscariot's refusal to accept that such abuse wasn't wanted, nor allowed without specific consent.

What Iscariot is trying to enforce do here is to change wiki policy/precedent so that anyone can abuse a group, on their own page, unless specifically told not to, or reverted by the page owner themselves, and also in the same breath stop well intentioned users from interfering in their fun, without first getting specific permission to do so (permission that he refuses to accept is needed by the abusers themselves). That leads to barely controlled anarchy, with only those willing to enforce their own page ownership rights being given the benefit of it. It will become a troll's paradise, with the aggressive and popular users ruling, and the meek being constantly hounded.

I realise that every time I edit someones user, group or other owned page, I take the risk of them being offended in some way, and being taken to A/VB. That is why I never take it lightly when I edit a page that someone else "owns" -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 12:18 28 December 2008 (BST)

Final Act: Arbitrator's ruling

I'd like to keep this decision as short as I possibly can. However, I think this ruling is going to be rather complicated, because honestly I don't find this to be as straightforward a case as it appears at first glance. And to deal with it, I'm gonna go "academic" on it for a bit. :)

First of all, I'm still not convinced that S.O.S. was a group page, in the conventional sense that groups are typically defined. The page was created to address a specific issue/concern re: Urban Dead, a concern re: game imbalance. This is something very different from creating a gaming group in order to play the game together, as a team. S.O.S. was what I'd call a "meta-group", i.e. in the league of " discourse about discourse", or "writing about writing'. As an inherently discursive wiki text about an open metagame movement, S.O.S. really can't be stuck under the umbrella of "you're not a member, you can't edit this page". Lucas Black's own statement that he'd hoped for it to develop "organically" emphasises this point.

IMNSHO the page falls somewhere in a grey area between a group page and a community page and as such it was open to editing by people not necessarily directly associated with the "group", and not even necessarily in support of the movement. Dialogue and discussion seems to have been an part of the author's design.

All that being said, however, it's pretty obvious what intention of the page was, what "position" it took on the issue. And in that context, the signatures -- which were clearly opposed to the intent of the page, which were in fact mere trolling -- were clearly edits made in bad faith. They were in no way constructive or contributive, not even to the process of fostering an "organic" dialogue or discussion. Functionally, they were very much akin to spam and NPOV postings on Sururb pages, which are routinely moved to Talk pages, if not outright deleted.

Therefore, Boxy was not only acting in good faith to move these bad faith, false signatories to the Talk page where they belonged -- but he was also following well established precedent in doing so. No, the status of the page was not black and white, as I've explained above; however, the application of normal UD wiki protocols and procedures in this somewhat ambiguous situation was exactly the right approach.

My decision is that the S.O.S. page is to reverted to this edit, without the bad-faith signatures, and the "trolling" signatures and the commentaries thereon are to remain on the Talk page.

And now a few words on this case "setting precedents"... As I've explained, I don't consider the status of the S.O.S. page to be exactly black and white. Therefore, any use of this Arbitration as a binding, black-and-white precedent for any and all similar (or not so similar) cases would be contrary to the intention and spirit of this decision. If you're not willing to wade uncertaintly through the murky waters, just don't go there.

That being said, however, I believe the most important points of this arbitration case revolve around the pretty straightforward fact that the original edits were made in bad faith, and that Boxy was acting in good faith and following standard wiki protocols (in a slightly non-standard situation) in moving those bad-faith edits to the Talk page. This pretty much sums up the spirit of this decision, and it's that which I expect to be "referenced" if ever this case is used as a precedent, not the details.
--WanYao 01:16, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Denouement: Acceptance of the ruling

Unsurprisingly, I have no complaints with your ruling. Thanks for your time, Wan -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 10:04 30 December 2008 (BST)