UDWiki:Administration/Move Requests/Archive/2013 Q4

Template:A/MRsub

Shortcut:
A/MR

This page is for the requesting of page moves by normal users. The average user's ability to move pages has been rescinded due to frequent abuse by vandals; as such, users will need to submit requests (similar in nature to those on Speedy Deletions and Protections) for pages to be moved by a sysop.

Guidelines for requesting a Page Move

Copy the template below (Or just type it), replace the text in red with the relevant details, and paste the template under the Move Request Queue heading. A day after a sysop has taken action on the request, move requests should be moved to the Archive.

===[[PAGENAME]]=== *[[MOVE TO HERE]] *~~~~

Move Request Queue

There are no pages in the move request queue

Recent Actions

Cobra stuff

• Cobra

⇒Cobra (disambiguation)

• Cobra (group)

⇒Cobra

• Cobra (group)/Diplomacy

⇒Cobra/Diplomacy

• Cobra (group)/Extensive Enterprises

⇒Cobra/Extensive Enterprises

• Cobra (group)/Guide

⇒Cobra/Guide

• Cobra (group)/Joining

⇒Cobra/Joining

• Cobra (group)/Recruitment

⇒Cobra/Recruitment

As was noted on the PKA on 2nd December 2012, all members of The Original Cobra have been MIA on the contact list, with multiple key mambers having been inactive for an even longer time. None of them has become active again since.

Ever since, both in-game and on the wiki Cobra and Cobra (group) have been used synonymously in common speech. As was most recently seen in the latest arbitration case, the distinction doesn't serve any purpose anymore and solely causes unnecessary confusion.

In the interest of the wiki being an as truthful and accurate information resource for Urban Dead as possible, I hereby request that the above move requests get carried out. -- Spiderzed█ 14:52, 12 October 2013 (BST)

I feel like the current article Cobra should be split, with the top portion moved to Cobra (disambiguation) and the lower (content) portion moved to another page. Disambig pages shouldn't have such content on them. Not sure what title would be best - Cobra (Original) seems like it'll have some confusion, maybe Cobra (former group)? Bob Moncrief ^EBD•W! 16:42, 12 October 2013 (BST)

Maybe simply Cobra (historical)? -- Spiderzed█ 17:30, 12 October 2013 (BST)

You've got balls, I'll give ya that. --VVV ^RPMBG 20:27, 12 October 2013 (BST)

It's terrible form to not inform the lesser cobra on their talk page. Do that, give it a week, and I'll consider it. Are you concerned that all the links to cobras history will now send you to a group that was created much later? --Rosslessness 00:04, 13 October 2013 (BST)

I will gladly send them a notice to get that sorted out. - As for incoming links, this won't be a problem at all, as they are pointing to the very same group. -- Spiderzed█ 12:25, 13 October 2013 (BST)

There's an arbitration ruling regarding this stuff that everyone should brush up on. It specifies that the page be "sealed" as a former group page with a disambiguation block. That former group is Bullgod's "Cobra" that is now inactive, but was a well-known group that had a decent wiki presence, plenty of content, and, most importantly, possessed the original claim to the Cobra page. As a continuation of that same group (at least, I believe that is what you would claim of yourself), you would normally be entitled to edit the Cobra page, except for the fact that the arbitration ruling bars you from using it for your own group.

In such a case, the only option is to create a new page and use it instead. The Dead had to do it when they were forced to create The Dead 2.0 because they weren't allowed to edit The Dead after they returned, and they didn't even have to deal with the complication of a competing claim to "The Dead" as a name. The circumstances preventing you from using the page are a bit different, but the outcome is the same: you're not allowed to use it. Sorry. —Aichon— 06:32, 13 October 2013 (BST)

You are citing Karek's conclusion, but omitting the reasoning behind that conclusion:

“	The problem that I keep running into though is that both groups do, in fact, exist. The reason this is an issue is that the wiki is a reflection of the reality of the game not the other way around.	”
—Karek

The other group has ceased to exist as far as the reality of the game is concerned. Furthermore, on the wiki Cobra and Cobra (group) have now for a long time been used synonymously. With the reason for the distinction being gone, the distinction should go as well, as it serves no purpose anymore but to cause confusion (like in the recent arbitration case).

As for The Dead, the reason behind it not being editable is a very different one. The Dead are a historical group page, and the decision to put the revived group under the same name would undo historical status, as historical groups must be inactive. A similar example would be Flowers of Decay/Flowers of Disease, where the revived group has decided not to re-use the old name in order to not harm the historical status. -- Spiderzed█ 12:25, 13 October 2013 (BST)

Let me restate things a bit, since I didn't convey my thoughts well. The inactivity of the other "Cobra" is irrelevant, since it doesn't change the fact that the page belongs to neither of you. The ruling states that it belongs to the former group, and the former group is as (in)active today as it was the day that Karek made his ruling. As such, the situation remains unchanged.

If you can track down Goribus or whoever and get them to agree to dissolve the arbitration ruling, I certainly won't object. Hell, grab Karek and get him to affirm that he never intended for it to bind you in this way, and I'll probably go along, since I'm sympathetic to your situation. But without provisions for inactivity in the ruling, we don't have much recourse. It's one thing to use a provided line of reasoning to better understand what was intended by a vague statement, but it's something else entirely to outright nullify a ruling, since 1) it's not our place to do so, 2) the arbitrator may have had unstated reasons that are still valid for making that ruling, and 3) we've never treated the reasons as binding, only the ruling itself. —Aichon— 00:52, 15 October 2013 (BST)

Is there a precedent for altering an arbitration case's outcome due to further changed circumstances? If not, then it stands (possibly unless another arbitration case is brought to change it?) Bob Moncrief ^EBD•W! 17:25, 14 October 2013 (BST)

There's precedent for ignoring ridiculous rulings (e.g. put an image of a duck on the Main Page), but I'm not aware of any precedent for ignoring or altering rulings that are reasonable and have remained in place for years unless there are provisions built into the ruling. —Aichon— 00:52, 15 October 2013 (BST)

Declaring this a no action taken. If you would like the pages moved, the arbitration case must be voided by action of Goribus or opening of a new case. Bob Moncrief ^EBD•W! 05:09, 30 October 2013 (UTC)