UDWiki:Administration/Arbitration/Yonnua Koponen vs Jorm

Case Presented on A/A

Really didn't want to have to do this, but I guess I do. This edit by Jorm is unwanted, and an edit war has started. As the original creator of the page, and to keep things in order with how they were last time, I'd ask that my version becomes the "official" version, and that Jorm be banned from changing that.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 19:39, 4 June 2010 (BST)

Seriously? I'm more than willing to arbitrate. --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 21:10, 4 June 2010 (BST)

Assuming the edit war continues, I accept you as Arbitrator.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 21:10, 4 June 2010 (BST)

Or you guys could, like, just rename the Zombicratic Party to Barhah Party and be done with it in five minutes. Or get rid altogether of the distinction between minor and major if it only produces drama. -- Spiderzed▋ 21:39, 4 June 2010 (BST)

I copied the page from last time's. If Jorm isn't happy with it, he's three years too late to complain. Also, when I suggested he just ran for the ZC party, he openly refused.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 21:42, 4 June 2010 (BST)

Someone going to protect that shit? --Thadeous Oakley 21:49, 4 June 2010 (BST)

Personally, I think it'd be best to not protect, considering its a page where the entire community is regularly providing input.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 21:50, 4 June 2010 (BST)

Yikes, of course, that was a silly suggestion. --Thadeous Oakley 21:52, 4 June 2010 (BST)

I'm neutral, I have a solution, pick me. 21:54, 4 June 2010 (BST)

Sure why not. I'll pretty much go with anyone.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 21:54, 4 June 2010 (BST)

Oh, by the way, no stupid rulings, such as removing all the candidates but you.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 21:59, 4 June 2010 (BST)

Sure, fine, whatever. You know I don't really care, right? --Jorm 22:00, 4 June 2010 (BST)

The Barhah party and the Zombieatic party are.. almost exactly the same, except for the name! Who better to run for the zombiehs than Jorm? Barhah should be at the top, settle it somehow. Jorm is one of the major candidates imo, it's just weird if he's a minor. doesn't make sense to me or anyone else. --S _{e n e r g y} ^T 22:00, 4 June 2010 (BST) barhah!

Right, to business. Since Jorm's not overly fussed on the process I'm going to just make a quick, easy and painless ruling so we have something binding, not gonna drag this out too much. 22:03, 4 June 2010 (BST)

Then he can run as a candidate, he can't name himself the only candidate. If he wants to be the only candidate for a party, he's a minor. If he wants to run in the primaries, then he can be a major party, but he can pick from the two that have existed for three years.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 22:04, 4 June 2010 (BST)

Good point. Still there's always room for change, I'm all for the barhah party being a major. but I understand --S _{e n e r g y} ^T 22:09, 4 June 2010 (BST)

Ultimately, I'm not against it, but he can't make radical changes without discussion.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 22:11, 4 June 2010 (BST)

Misanthropy's Summation

This is entirely a formatting debate. Though the issue appears to be ego-based, playing on the 'major' and 'minor' distinctions. However, any solution to this is simply going to be an issue of parlance. As such, my proposed ruling is simply to replace the heading marked 'Major Parties' with 'Returning Parties', and the heading marked 'Minor Parties' with 'Newer Parties'. This allows the two parties from the previous election to remain marked out, but places no distinction of percieved superiority upon them. Within each of the two heading, parties will be alphabetised, and all entries containing more than 400 words or any images will be made within a table to keep the reshuffling of alphabetised listings clean and easy. Any opposition to this proposed ruling can be discussed below.

Discussion from Yonnua and Jorm

Can't have two tabled images on a line. I hence oppose that aspect, mainly because it has absolutely nothing to do with this case. The rest I'm good with.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 22:16, 4 June 2010 (BST)

RDD/Recruit has two images in a line. I don't know why you think you can't. :S 22:25, 4 June 2010 (BST)

Those aren't in tables. Putting them in tables forces the second image on to a new line. This is why I oppose the table clause.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 22:26, 4 June 2010 (BST)

The entire box is a table. That's what I mean. If you align all your images within a table, if it's moved about the page it'll still be aligned. 22:28, 4 June 2010 (BST)

Do it for my images.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 22:32, 4 June 2010 (BST)

"Do it for my images please"? 22:39, 4 June 2010 (BST)

Why should I do it for your images? Anyway, I've already sorted it. :P --Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 22:41, 4 June 2010 (BST)

Crap ruling. Misanthropy is now the top candidate in the list and has an unfair advantage due to this. This kind of ballot manipulation would make Florida proud.--Jorm 22:26, 4 June 2010 (BST)

Actually KyleStyle would be top (he's apparently the Zombiecratic entry), K before M. 22:28, 4 June 2010 (BST)

Since the "Returning parties" are sorted by party, not candidate, you'll still be top, unless a humanative candidate earlier than M stands.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 22:32, 4 June 2010 (BST)

I fail at alphabets. Right, sod that bit, have Zombicratic top since it won last time, then everything alphabetical afterwards. No advantage to me that way. 22:39, 4 June 2010 (BST)

Sounds good.--Yonnua Koponen ^{Talk ! Contribs} 22:41, 4 June 2010 (BST)