UDWiki:Administration/Arbitration/Krazy Monkey vs DoctorRevive
|
Administration Services — Protection. This page has been protected against editing. See the archive of recent actions or the Protections log. |
Cheese vs DoctorRevive
There has been an on-going edit war on the Giddings Mall page, again. This has been going on for at least 2 weeks now and despite the page being protected and the parties asked to go to arbitration a grand total of 3 times now, it still continues.
The trouble is over the following section:
- These include an assault by The Many, ending in a survivor victory, and a month-long siege by The Second Big Bash ending in a zombie victory. The latter saw the innovation of the Beachhead Tactic, this tactic was an application of a new feature brought about by the recent update. (version at the time of current protection)
The main instigator of this is DoctorRevive, who has constantly reverted every attempt to change it from his view. He believes that the reason the zombies won at Giddings was due completely to the barricade update and nothing else. Several users (particularly Iscariot and Garum have been involved in this dispute, but it is DoctorRevive who is stubbornly refusing to go with the consensus.
As the sysop who has been involved in the conflict, I am fed up with having to continuously protect and unprotect this page to stop this pointless edit war. As a result, I'm taking the good Doctor to Arbies myself since a case has not yet been brought forward despite requesting one several days ago. I believe that the Doctor is wrong to continually revert the statement to only show his own views and as a result, do not belong on an NPOV information page. From this case, I would like the current revision of the page to be upheld and any attempts by DoctorRevive to change it back be deemed as vandalism due to repeated requests to desist.
I will accept most arbitrators, however I won't except Iscariot due to him being involved in the case anyway.-- Cheese 22:07, 21 May 2008 (BST)
- I offer to....damn it Cheese. I at least offer to be an expert witness for Common Sense and the background in this case, and also on who I suspect this guy of being. I'll watch this with interest. --
.
. <== DDR Approved Editor 22:39, 21 May 2008 (BST)
- I offer to arbie--Dragon fang 23:00, 21 May 2008 (BST)
- I also offer to arbie this case.--'BPTmz 23:30, 21 May 2008 (BST)
- I'll accept anyone except Iscariot, who seems to be unwilling to accept that i am not Happykook, he is my roomate.--DoctorRevive 17:36, 22 May 2008 (BST)
- I also offer to arbie this case.--'BPTmz 23:30, 21 May 2008 (BST)
- I offer to arbie--Dragon fang 23:00, 21 May 2008 (BST)
Looks like a relatively straight forwards case for a first go. I will take it if you will both have me? --Honestmistake 13:41, 22 May 2008 (BST)
I offer to buy everyone curly fries while here. (In English: I offer to arbitrate.) --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ #nerftemplatedsigs 19:34, 22 May 2008 (BST) By the way, people who still think I'm biased, I'll start by proving myself unbiased here, because it seems to be the best way to prove I'm not biased. --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ #nerftemplatedsigs 19:37, 22 May 2008 (BST)
Ok then just for clarification, DoctorRevive has accepted anyone except Iscariot, While Krazy_Monkey has accepted Axe Hack, Rosslessness, Blood Panther(myself) or Honestmistake. Krazy has left the final choice to DoctorRevive, so pick away Doctor.--'BPTmz 22:02, 22 May 2008 (BST)
I said i'd take anyone except Iscariot, but if i must pick then enie meanie miney Axehack. --DoctorRevive 22:10, 22 May 2008 (BST)
Opening Statements
Without any further delay, KM, please present your opening. After KM is done, Doc, please present your opening. --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ #nerftemplatedsigs 22:38, 24 May 2008 (BST)
Krazy Monkey
Alright, here's the beef. The Giddings Mall page is a Neutral Point of View Informational page provided to provide visitors with information on current and past events that have (or are) occurring at the mall. The main edit in question is this where DoctorRevive removes the section about the Beachhead Tactic which, in my opinion, is relevant to the page as it played a big part in the endgame of the siege. However, DoctorRevive removed it.
This edit was then reverted many times and DoctorRevive continued to go against the consensus. I personally protected and unprotected the page 3 times to date (it is currently protected). In my opinion, the controversy is caused by the Doctor's belief that the Beachhead Tactic is the barricading update, while it actually is an application of the update. This can be seen here where the Doc changes it to read this way.
At this point, I was beginning to get fed up of protecting the page every other day and changed it myself to something a bit less controversial. The edit war then started up again and despite several requests, neither party took this to arbitration. So I did it myself.
I'm going to make two things clear before DoctorRevive makes his statement: a) I am not in any way comparing this to the Mall Tunes debate. This is a completely different conflict altogether and does not involve them. b) I do not appreciate Iscariot's attempts to antagonise DoctorRevive by saying that both he (Revive) and Happykook are the same person. Therefore, that also is a separate issue that should be taken up with Iscariot, not with me. -- Cheese 14:55, 25 May 2008 (BST)
DoctorRevive
The "beachhead tactic" IS the update, it is not an "application" nor is it a "tatic" nor is it anything else. if you read the update announcement [1] you will see that. It is not an ability you need to buy, nor is it a item or ability you have to click on to activate or use, it is always automatically working and is the same as breathing as far as the game is concerned. So trying to make it out to be this great "tactic" or "application" is just an attempt to mask the fact that it is nothing more than an update.
The Giddings Mall seige was going on for a month with no signs that the zed horde could break through, despite numerous attempts they were constantly pushed back time and time again... Until Kevan introduced the Barricade Update, and ironically within 4 days the mall laid in ruins with the zeds pounding their chest in victory. If you look at the big bash page, you will see a constant argument that will never be resolved in regards to whether or not the Update won the battle of not, each side of the argument thinks they are right, and will not give up.
Mentioning the Giddings Mall war is NPOV, but when you start talking bout the "Beachhead Tactic" you are almost taking a side. I feel that is better to simply mention the war, and leave it at that. If the "beachhead tactic" has to be mentioned it should be mentioned as it is which i attempted here [2]
As i see it the two options are simply don't mention the update, or you mention the update and call it what it really is.
I'd like to add also that Iscariot has not helped any matters with his antics in regards to this issue, and should have his behavior corrected as well. Cheese felt it was necessary to only take me to arbitration when he was clearly causing problems as well, which Cheese has admitted, and scolded Iscariot on his own talk page. [3] So obviously Cheese feels that he was in error as well, but since they are buds, he doesn't require arbitration for his actions... How fair is this???--DoctorRevive 16:16, 25 May 2008 (BST)
Rebuttal
After the Doc has made his opening, KM, you are free to present a rebuttal (if you want). Doc, once KM has finished his rebuttal, you may, if you choose to do so, present a rebuttal. --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ #nerftemplatedsigs 22:38, 24 May 2008 (BST)
Krazy Monkey
The Beachhead Tactic is an application of the Update. It can be called thus due to the co-ordination involved to use it effectively. A random feral breaking into a building could in theory keep the barricades down if a new player with no combat skills trys to barricade, however when faced with larger numbers of survivors, the feral wouldn't stand a chance and would be headshot and dumped before they could Mrh?. As a result, to make this barricade blocking ability effective, there needs to coordination involving a large number of zombies. As an individual this is nothing more than an update to allow a zombie a slim chance of annoying some survivors. However, as a group this is a tactic that can be employed to break a siege and lead to victory. That's what makes it a tactic.
By just referring to the update as the thing that won the war, you basically make it seem that the only way the zombies could win was with it. However, after being in several Mall Sieges myself (on both sides) I know that that is not the case. Any Mall will fall, the question is how long it will take. Zombies have the advantage in any war, they can stand up for a minimum of 1AP at full health, they don't need to wait for a revive or find ammunition. They may not be able to kill as fast, but in large numbers they will win any siege. Giddings fell because the survivors panicked. Their usual tactics of cade, kill and dump wouldn't work here and as a result a lot of them ran leaving their numbers low. Once one corner fell, the rest followed. This victory was not caused by the update. The update just gave the zombies the tools and tactics to make it end faster.
I am going to repeat this once more: this arbitration case is not a place for you to air your grievances about Iscariot. He is not involved in this case at all. This is an edit dispute on a location page between two conflicting series of edits.
I'd like to add also that Iscariot has not helped any matters with his antics in regards to this issue, and should have his behavior corrected as well. Cheese felt it was necessary to only take me to arbitration when he was clearly causing problems as well, which Cheese has admitted, and scolded Iscariot on his own talk page. So obviously Cheese feels that he was in error as well, but since they are buds, he doesn't require arbitration for his actions... How fair is this???
This has no bearing on the case at all. The question we are asking is which version of the page should stand? DoctorRevive's version? Or the one that appears to be supported by more than one person? Not whether it is fair to bring a case against you and not Iscariot. I have brought the case against your edits to the page, not you personally and Iscariot is not involved in this at all. As he said on the talk page: As this case concerns yourself and Cheese, only you and he are bound by the outcome, you should be aware of this before you begin to whine afterwards. This is true. You can't use this case to attack Iscariot and attempt to get your own back on him. If you want to do that, set up another arby case against him. Until then, stick to the subject at hand. -- Cheese 17:16, 25 May 2008 (BST)
DoctorRevive
Once again, the Tactic is not a tactic, its a game update, there is no application to it.
Before the update how did zombie hordes take a mall? They ran in in mass numbers and killed everyone inside. After the update how does a zombie horde take a mall? Well, they run in in mass numbers and kill everyone inside, only now, thanks to the update, they have an added advantage in blocking barricading rebuilding. They do not do anything different than before, there is no skill to activate, or item to click, attacking is accomplished the exact same way as before. There is no different co-ordination in attacking the mall now, as there was before, so saying the update is now a tactic that requires a different strategy to use than before is absurd. Honestly, if anything, the update removed the need for tactics, as before when your flooded the mall with zeds, half would have to keep tearing the cades down, while the other half killed, now there is no need to keep tearing cades down, because just by having mass numbers in the mall blocks survivors from recading thanks to the update.
In regards to the update winning the war, the fact of the matter is that the survivors had successfully held off the mall for over a month, fighting back wave after wave, but ironically 4 days after the update was installed, the mall laid in ruins. There is never going to be an answer one way or the other as to whether or not the update was the deciding factor, and i've already said that. I've also said the only way to maintain peace is to not mention the update in regards to the battle at all, that way both sides can be satisfied. The big bash is creditied with the win, and that's it. Mentioning the Beachead tactic (which isn't a tactic, its another name for the update) only continues to reopen the wound of the debate over and over. Why not allow both sides their say by allowing the mention of the Big Bash Victory, but leaving all mention of the update out all together?
Finally, Iscariot is to be mentioned because it was also due to his antics that the edit war raged on. It is quite sad that you are allowing your friend to hide behind you by saying "since he was on my side its ok". It wasn't OK, and as i referenced above you even scolded him yourself over the matter, but chose instead only to take me to arbitration to face a punishment. Its interesting to see a sysop take the stance that childish antics will be tolerated as long as its by your friends and they are taking the same side as you while they are performing said antics...
I leave the final decision to Axe. --DoctorRevive 00:04, 28 May 2008 (BST)
Verdict
After everything else is done, I shall post the conclusions and the verdict here. --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ #nerftemplatedsigs 23:23, 24 May 2008 (BST)
Alright. I ran through everything, every link, every statement, and what not. I found 2 links to be the most eye catching to me. I can see in this edit, KM has made the article NPOV, which was how it should have stayed. I noticed Iscariot has edited that as seen here, and in that same link, the edit was reverted by Doc, but it looks like he also added "thanks to the introduction" in front of "Beachhead Tactic". I see the revert as a good thing to keep Giddings Mall NPOV (the way KM had left it), but with the extra that was added, the first thought I had was "thanks to the introduction" is pro-survivor in a negative way, but also pro-zombie in a positive way. I find that this article should remain as the edit KM had given it, and I ask Doc to refrain from adding to it. Also, I see some stuff that involves Iscariot, but I can't make a ruling on him becuase he is not a party in this case. I can see that it is Iscariot who strayed away from the NPOV thing, and I believe that this case should have been against Iscariot, rather than the Doc.
So my final ruling in a short sentence? Leave the article as seen in this edit, and Doc, please don't add to it. Case close. *Bangs gravel* --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ #nerftemplatedsigs 19:50, 28 May 2008 (BST)
Acceptance of Verdict
I will abide by the ruling Axe, although i don't totally agree with it, i felt my small addition to the description you chose is necessary to keep balance, but its ok.
I would also like to thank you for pointing out that Iscariot is the one who should have been dragged into this, and not me. It's nice to see that someone else besides me sees his antics for what they are, but then again so has Cheese via his comments on Iscariots talk page. I'd also like to point out by dragging me in here, and not Iscariot, Iscariot feels that once again he has gotten away with his crap, and will use this as fuel to continue his antics on the wiki, hinding behind Cheese as he has already done.
Thank you for being impartial and agreeing that this was a case of sysop bias. --DoctorRevive 21:32, 28 May 2008 (BST)
I accept the ruling. But I don't agree with DoctorRevive's statement that this was sysop bias as that was not mentioned at all in the ruling. As I stated at least 3 times, your name came up the most in the edit war and it was your version I disagreed with, that is why I brought you here. If Iscariot continues to be a dick, then I will have no problems with dragging him to arbies. As I also stated, he is not my buddy, and as a result I'm not protecting him. In fact, I'm not very happy about his claims that both you (Revive) and Happykook are the same person, while all evidence points to the contrary.
To sum what I just said up, I accept the ruling but I do not appreciate DoctorRevive's claims of bias, considering that had no part in the ruling. -- Cheese 22:04, 28 May 2008 (BST)
