UDWiki talk:Administration/Arbitration/JebJ vs Kirsty Cotton

So

Using non wiki sources is interesting. I'd have looked closer at the 2cool VB cases for on wiki evidence.--Rosslessness 21:28, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Potential evidence as 'threat' not being acted upon, although not completely relevant. This would have really been an interesting case to arbitrate, really bummed I couldn't. A ZOMBIE ANT 00:30, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Likewise. It gets down to the nuts and bolts of UDwiki. Does the right of one person to roleplay take precedent over another. Obviously my bias is clear on this one. --Rosslessness 15:31, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

I guess I can weigh in on this discussion, even though I'm involved. There is no roleplay attempt in the removal of "offensive" material. So, I view it more, does one user have the right to censor another user's roleplaying. On a side note, the nallan case should have been vandalism. Personal opinion: if you say "I'm/we/him are going to x irl" you should only do it to someone who knows you are joking and is okay with it. However, drop the "irl", not vandalism. --_K 22:57, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

My bias is pretty clear in my belief it's not vandalism since I know him personally and at the time he was a 17 year old student in Australia and obviously the chances of him doing anything to anyone in udwiki IRL was absolute nil, so I just found it hilarious. So did Nubis, thankfully. Making the victim feel genuinely threatened, while not actually intended, is very unfortunate though. A ZOMBIE ANT 06:18, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Obviously I shouldn't say much or else I'd sway the case. But I wanted to say I think it's a very interesting case. I kind of wish it were moving a bit faster, but I'll just assume Jeb is building an awesome closing statement and needs a bit more time to nail down the details ~ _{23:38, 16 December 2014 (UTC)}

Or at least a gif of a dog wearing sunglasses. --Rosslessness 23:54, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

I prefer the old-fashioned chewbacca defense. -- Spiderzed▋ 09:46, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Still no UDwiki based precedent. I'm trying to help here. Not everything is about Ethics in Video Games.--Rosslessness 00:45, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

I've been wanting to chime in, but I needed to sort out my own thoughts first, since this really is an interesting case that's raised a lot of interesting points. I finally realized that the reason it was taking me so long to think it through was because we've all been overlooking the obvious: this disagreement boils down to "what does the community want?". That's it. This is a mere case of clashing opinions on an unowned page, so the community's desire for the page is the only thing that matters. This case isn't about civility, precedent, ethics, validity of RP, gender equality, policy, the previous state of the page, or anything else that we're all used to hashing out on A/A. After all, no one on the wiki has any sort of claim to that page, so regardless of what the ruling ends up being, there's nothing stopping another member of the community from making edits to the page the day after the ruling comes in. The only way that doesn't happen is if the page reflects what the community wants. Which begs the question: what do we want? —Aichon— 05:05, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

This wiki has an extremely hard time with consensus, which is why Arbitration is needed in times like this. I'm not sure if there's any rules concerning uninvolved parties making changes contrary to an arbiter's ruling. It would seem silly if there wasn't. My eyes are still blurry from wiki-lawyering or I'd try to find precedent of it. FWIW I thought my ruling was rather community centric. I tried to stay on topic and really only discussed points that were brought up during the case, checking my own bias at the door. I'd welcome any critiques and of course Jeb and Kirsty are welcome to comment on my ruling on the arbitration page. ~ _{08:44, 24 December 2014 (UTC)}

Actually, your ruling makes perfect sense. I had thought this was just a random image from some random yahoo. My entire statement was predicated on the idea that no one had a special claim to the page, but the fact that there was a location-specific group in that area undermines everything I said. Just as the BAR has a connection to the Burchell Arms or the Philosophe Knights have a connection to Southall Mansion, so too does the now-extinct group you mentioned have a connection to Meany. If another group moves in and wants to RP the location differently, I'm fine with them doing so and removing/archiving the current content, but that currently isn't the case. —Aichon— 18:28, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Intermission

I'll be traveling with limited access to internet for a couple of weeks. If this case has continued when I return, I'll post my ruling then. If there's been no other activity when I return, I'll likely archive this as a withdrawn Arbitration case. Merry Christmas everyone. ~ _{23:19, 19 December 2014 (UTC)}

Request

I would ask that all portions of Jeb's reply that are in direct response to my reply be removed and not considered in the decision. The instructions were clear: "You may comment on any part of the statements above, including statements made in reply to my questions above." I assume this is to avoid giving an unfair advantage to any one party by allowing them "final word" in the matter. If whoever speaks last gets to reply to everything stated by the other party, arbitration would be needlessly drawn out as speaking first would basically be penalized. If the above request cannot be meet for any reason, I ask the that this arbitration case be fully dismissed with no action taken and Jeb having the opportunity to restart the process and adhere to the rules set forth during that arbitration. --_K 00:58, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

The reason I said that is because I asked for points of clarification from both parties, and I wanted you to be able to respond to those comments. I'd be extremely remiss to dismiss this case for what boils down to semantics. And to be fair, you posed quite a bit of your closing statements in question from. See also most every arbitration case in UDWiki history. I will post my ruling shortly. ~ _{04:21, 24 December 2014 (UTC)}

#Gamergate

It has finally arrived in UD as well, along with the Social Justice Warriors attacking it. Oh my. -- Spiderzed▋ 01:45, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

I hoped this would never come to UD! Nooo! A ZOMBIE ANT 06:32, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

BOOBS WIN!

--User:Sexualharrison14:43, 25 December 2014

What an interesting case to read, and probably the most civil handling of a disagreement I've watched in a while. Good work all. Ruling, IMO, was well done too. Good work Vapor. A ZOMBIE ANT 06:32, 2 January 2015 (UTC)