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.