UDWiki talk:Administration/Arbitration/Spiderzed vs Doc Ryleigh

Cobra

I joined Cobra in March. At that time there were about 7 or 8 active members who were on the boards amg regularly PKing. Unfortunately the trophy lounge has now been moved to a private forum but if someone grants you access I'm sure you will see that borne out. Sally A Summers behaved as leader of the group and was accepted as such by the active members. I use the term leader loosely, Cobra's leader is largely ceremonial and is closer to a wiki sysop than a traditional group leader, i.e. instead of giving orders the leader is more likely to be doing wiki gnome work. Most things were decided democratically with members deciding whether or not they participated. In fact, this operation http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php/Talk:The_Fortress#Cobra_extends_its_gratitude was suggested by me, whilst I was still a recruit.

During this time Annabell Leigh had diplomatic status granting access to the private areas of the forum but at no point did she login or, if she did, she did not post. If you look at her recent post history on Proboards you will see that, other than her posts since the "coup" her last post was in October 2010. Likewise the user Gorbius last posted on December 2nd 2009 before resuming posting post "coup." Last month http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php/User:Urgggggggh (group alt Doc Mindbender,) returned to the Cobra boards after a similarly long absence. He posted a few times but did not return to the groups core activities, namely gunning down innocent survivors for giggles.

At this time there were 10 full members who were actively participating in the group and 1 recruit who was fairly inactive. It should be noted that the users mentioned above had full access to the groups board and could have engaged in a dialogue about any issues they had with the groups leadership at any time.

A few weeks ago Spidey decided that, as a fairly democratic bunch of PKing sociopaths, we should have re-evaluations for the group's leader, board administrators and moderators. The election for leader was carried out first. Sally A Summers (Spiderzed,) was re-elected unopposed. Again, I reiterate, the members cited in this arbitration had full access to the board during this process and could have put up an alternate candidate or opposed the process at any time. There was a sneak PK attack in game around this time. I don't actually care about this, it's a game, we're PKers, we can take it. It's not a big deal. What I do have an issue with is what happened next.

Annabell has apparently had access to the founder account for the board since she was leader, before she left/went long term absent. Rather than engage in dialogue she chose to abuse that to "take back" control of the group. Unfortunately the group is made up of it's members and not defined by a forum. The members recognised Spiderzed as our elected leader, not someone who had been long term absent and had not contributed to the group in over a year, so we promptly all left for new boards which we had quickly set up.

In under 24 hours the active members of Cobra had all created new accounts on the new forum and, as we are the established group, we updated our wiki page with the new URL. I believe that common sense would dictate that the people who had been playing under a particular tag, who played together, who participated on joint operations and who had voted for their choice of leader should be recognised as the group. As such I believe that Spiderzed retains the authority to edit the wiki page. Domino Harvey 23:57, 22 June 2011 (BST)

I would like address some things. First, I support Spiderzed as the recognized leader of group. Second, since Goribus misquoted me, this is what I actually said about Sage's return or a new leader, http://cobrakills.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=cc&thread=423&page=1#9022. No mention of a former leader returning. (Additionally I screenshot'd this post in case something should happen to it.) But to clarify that statement, I would think it rather obvious I would recognize Sage's return; I would not have recognized a petty attempt to steal the group by him. The members who support Spider (other than the neutral Yog)have been the ones keeping the group active. Goribus's members have either just joined or just returned. Skoll actually had the quickest time from recruit to member. We made Yog, a well established PKer spend more time as a recruit, since that has been the policy since Annabell's time or before. So, it seems obvious these new member and returning members are just to boost apparent group numbers. It comes down to a simple problem. Annabell/Goribus were not members of the group anymore, were never accepted as members, but rather just claimed ownership. We do not recognize their claim to the group. They have a forum, a forum of that only had one Cobra member, Yog. We have been and are still the face of Cobra in the game. I personally, can claim over 1 year of membership, I was the second to last member before Annabell left. By the time, Sage went AWOL, Cobra was basically me, Spiderzed and Blah. So, it's not like the old guard left under Spider, they were leaving under Annabell and Sage and were gone by that point. A final note, the one member of the old guard who stayed active during Spiderzed's leadership chose to come with us rather than with Annabell. Also, other than Yog, I don't think Sally knew a single member before they joined. I know I didn't, but as with any good group, I do now consider them my friends. --Kirsty Cotton 12:07, 23 June 2011 (BST)

Here's my rebuttal to both of you: Even if you toss out the fact that Annabell has a claim to the group, anyone that's run a PKer group with votes to determine staff for longer than five minutes knows to mass email all members so that even absentee members might return. It's pretty standard. See, that way if you can legitimately say that you contacted the group and the entire group had a chance to vote. Unless, of course, you feel that you could just sway things into your favor by calling for a vote and not notifying all members. What you did, even if you didn't intend for it to seem this way, is akin to a mutiny. Which would pretty much justify our way of thinking that the group needed to be taken back with force. So it looks like you being amateurs has come back to haunt you yet again. It kind of sucks for you, but please do keep giving me ammunition to strengthen my case. :D -- Goribus 12:51, 23 June 2011 (BST)

As for voting, the entire group is not active. Why should you get to pop up out of nowhere and have a say in a group you aren't active in? Even the wiki limits who can vote for sysop for just that reason. --Kirsty Cotton 12:57, 23 June 2011 (BST)

While there was a policy created to that effect, it was never passed. And there is no vote when it comes to promoting sysops: It's a community discussion that the 'crats evaluate at the end of the two weeks. Just saying. -- Cheese 18:52, 23 June 2011 (BST)

That's simple Kirsty: Because they're in the group. And a vote for said group effects ALL members and not just the active. See, I'm from a group that's been doing this whole election deal for years. And we kind of thought of every possible scenario including this one. So to eliminate anything negative it's become protocol to mass email our members. You'll sometimes get people you haven't seen in ages popping by, sometimes you'll get people asking for their accounts to be deleted because they don't want to be in the group, but you always get responses from the people that check their email but haven't been on in awhile. It's needed for staff votes, you'd know that if you had thought far enough ahead. But that's not you lot because what you've just told me is this: "We didn't let anyone know because fuck you if you're not active, you don't have a say." Like I said kiddies, please keep giving me ammunition to strengthen my case. -- Goribus 22:39, 23 June 2011 (BST)

You understand that is about wiki page ownership, not whether we meet UN voting standards, right? --Kirsty Cotton 13:12, 24 June 2011 (BST)

Yes. But page ownership is most likely going to be determined by who has the most valid claim as leader though. That's what Karek's looking for. At least I would assume so since he wanted a leadership timeline in addition to other factors. I really don't even think it would matter if there were 50 of you showing up to voice your support as group numbers are fairly irrelevant. At the end of the day what's going to decide this is who Karek deems 'the true Cobra' in regards to this wiki. Odds are it will be us as I've pointed out you made a mistake when you didn't mass email everyone. It would make the claims that Sally is a legitimate leader that was duly appointed more legitimate. But live and learn. -- Goribus 22:35, 24 June 2011 (BST)

Hello members of UDwiki, I am Mr Blahman, and I would like to give my account of my history with Cobra from my perspective. Being the most senior member who is in Spiderzed's Cobra, I remember many of these ex-cobra's who have usurped the forums.

I joined Cobra in December of 2009, which was at the time under the leadership of Annabell Leigh (Doc Ryleigh). I became a recruit and entered my induction period of 15 kills, which I completed in January and became a full member of Cobra. I continued to be a very active member of Cobra, performing many kills, participating in discussions, and actively doing anything to support Cobra.

Other members of Cobra at this time included Doc Mindbender, who was a part of the usurping party.

The Summer of 2010, I had IRL obligations that would not let me check on the group even once (mainly surgery and recovery, and going out of the country) So, I decided to go on hiatus from Urban Dead, and returned in the late fall of 2010 to Urban Dead. Upon my return I noticed an abundance of changes.

First of all, Annabell Leigh has left, and our special operations team Sisters of Death has disbanded/separated from our group. Sage Carr has become the leader, and I announced my return and began doing what I did in the past. Many members left, including Doc Mindbender and people who joined the Usurping Party that caused this fiasco. I discovered Kirsty Cotton, and Sally A Summers (Spiderzed, but I will call her Sally throughout this account as that is what I know him as) have joined when I was gone.

Then Sage Carr disappeared, as a leaderless and figurehead-less Cobra, we decided to act and appoint Sally A Summers as the temporary leader of Cobra until Sage Carr returned, and the decision was unanimous, with all active members of the entire group agreeing to this. We were not only her "Friends" as Goribus points out, but we were the entire group. Not a small circle of friends appointed her, but the entire group did.Therefore, Sally A Summers legitimately became the leader of Cobra.

The group at this time was going through a low point, with basically being a core group of Sally, Kirsty, and I Mr Blahman, keeping the group alive, continually killing, participating and sponsoring events, remaking the official Cobra wiki page, and recruiting heavily. By this, we have successfully increased our numbers to 11, provoked and PKed many members of prominent groups increasing our publicity.

In May, Sally wisely decided to hold elections for the leader of Cobra and administrators and moderators. The purpose of this was to avoid another fiasco like Sage Carr and to make sure that Cobra never goes leaderless and understaffed. This election was clearly visible to many members of the usurping party such as Doc Mindbender, Annabell Leigh, who could have easily seen the election, and just nominated themselves to do this democratically.

But on June 17, while in the middle of an election for Administrators, Annabell Leigh used an old root administrator account to "Reclaim" Cobra, which in turn meant she demoted everyone to a new user, and immediately put her friends as administrators and full members.

Their justification for this? Cobra was dying because of an inside joke involving ponies? Despite having one of the best times for Cobra with a good hearty public relation (As much as a PKer group gets) and high membership counts.

Absolutely disgusted by this act, Sally A Summers cooperated with all the demoted members, and moved to a new forum within 24 hours. Every member that was active in Cobra before the usurping, joined the new forum, with a majority of them deleting their account on the proboards forums, including I. --Krazymouse 15:32, 24 June 2011 (BST)

Yes. They could have seen things had they regularly gone to the forums. Which is not the case as Mindbender was surprised by how you were portraying yourselves on the wiki. Again, as I've pointed out you really should have mass emailed everyone. Sure, you PMed people, but I didn't notice until after I had came back under Annabell's new administration. Also, I should point out that you lot were demoted because your loyalty was in question. You were even offered the chance to become recognized as Cobra simply by asking for it. Other than a few of you, you would have been welcome backed with open arms if only you had asked. You chose instead to delete your accounts and side with Spiderzed. Which is your choice, but I'd rather not have people think that we had no reason for demoting you or the others. It was a legitimate security concern. Especially with the fact that logically you lot being a PKer group that now has a grudge probably shouldn't have access to internal knowledge. For example: our locations. -- Goribus 22:35, 24 June 2011 (BST)

As the Doc Mindbender who keeps being name-dropped above, joining around the end of the Bullgod/Beehivehead era, Id like to point out that I was away from the game in all capacities for approx 16-18 months (apart from the occasional log in) whilst off having a life. I eventually returned to the game after said life became boring again, whereupon I re-joined the Cobra forums only to discover that the group had become a hideous parody of itself. As much as I hate to piss on Blahmans bonfire, I was not an initial part of the original 'usurping', so could not have mentioned the 'elections' before a coup I wasn't aware of, however upon hearing of it (outside of RDD channels) and the reason why: "My Little Cobra is a fucking joke" (paraphrased) I agreed and told Doc Ryleigh that I would wholeheartedly support her return. She returned, I supported it and do still.   URGGGGGGGHTalk PSYCHOUTTalk STAN SATANTalk 00:18, 25 June 2011 (BST)

Are you really counted as a member if you've been away and gone for over a year? Not really. The election does not concern you if you haven't logged in for over a year, whether you're on an extended hiatus, left the group, or etc. If it doesn't concern you, then why should you vote? But of course you always have the ability to log on if you really want to become active in Cobra again and participate in the election.

We were forcibly demoted. Why? You called us untrustworthy of being a full member and demoted us the lowest level on the forum, the level in which a newly registered user is, why? Because we are "untrustworthy?" That basically means, the group of people who've been carrying Cobra along for half a year is not actually trustworthy of being Cobra, while the people who now run Cobra are the ones who've been gone for a year and a half? We had to re-ask to join Cobra, and that's more like joining a whole new group, rather than already being in one.

A "hostile" takeover of the forums, means you were an external party who came in and stole the forums in an undignified and unfair manner. Something achieved by unfair methods does not justify the ownership of it and everything associated with it. A group is defined as people working together, not a small party forcing their own ideals.

...I need to be active to count? Whatever. I'm sick of arguing the point that inactive members have the same rights to vote in a group that they're in as active members do. If you don't get why, no amount of me explaining it to you will make you get it.

For starters your loyalty was in question. You kind of answered who you sided with between Annabell and Spiderzed when you up and deleted your accounts in spite of the fact that she posted that any of you that asked to stay Cobra could. That only some of you would be need to be evaluated. That some of you just needed to ask and you would be welcomed back with open arms. Most likely with your previous ranks re-instated, but I'm not here to play 'what ifs'. Two of you did. And as a result one was made Cobra and one is being kept on as a recruit/is being considered to be promoted to Cobra. No one told you to delete your accounts.

Need another reason why? Why were we forcibly demoted to Diplomat following the attack. Surely we obviously had an issue that needed discussing. You demoted us for the same reason we demoted you: there was a question of where your loyalties lied. Some of you are very close to Spiderzed and we'd rather not let spies into our group. That's the only reason you were demoted and made to ask to be in Cobra, because we needed to know who wasn't going to lift forum info and toss it at Spiderzed's faction. You guys built a forum and are clinging onto the name, you've approached survivor groups to do your dirty work for you, and I could go on, yet you are still asking me why we didn't trust some of you? Can we drop this now please?

Our group works together just fine. What made us hostile was the fact that we viewed you as taking the group by force, which is funny because that's what it looks like. But instead of getting our feelings hurt about it, we decided to do what villains do and take it back. With force. And now with diplomacy and politics. This is nothing more than business to me. But it's looking like you're taking this personal. I have nothing against any of you. I don't even care how you roleplayed. But despite the fact that you kept the group alive, you took it 180°'s from what people expected it to be. Not you personally, but in general. It's the group's theme really, and yeah there was an all female sub-team at one time that's now a separate group. But there's a subtle line between Commando Nuns and Moeblobs. You even saw a former member I wasn't even aware of tell you so, and that was the reason that they quit. Yeah you lot knew it was an in-joke, but did anyone else? One of you even stated something to the effect of hoping that it wouldn't alienate potential new members. And outside of your group of friends it has for the most part.

We're being pretty fair about the whole thing. Annabell's agreed to give you your portion of the kills, Spiderzed's guide, and all we really want is the name, the proboards forum, and our wiki page. You've even heard others state that if you don't want to rejoin Cobra you'd be able to parlay your gimmick into a successful new group. -- Goribus 06:03, 26 June 2011 (BST)

First of all, I never said you needed to be active to be able to vote. Inactive members had EVERY right to vote. Now, whether they knew about it because they actively participated in Cobra is a different story. Why should we put in the effort for over a hundred inactive members most of whom probably do not care much about Cobra. There was nothing stopping you from logging onto the proboards and voting in the election, you just didn't know about the election because you never bothered to even check on Cobra in the first place.

Think about it, does the government mail out letters to everyone saying that it's election season and encouraging them to vote? No it does not. Those who participate in the society are the ones who get a say because they actually TRY to have a voice in the government.

It's just the same, we don't want to bother everyone by sending mass emails to everyone. It's much simpler to just PM everyone on the forums of the new internal election, because if you are actually active in Cobra, then you'll see it. "I'm sick of arguing the point that inactive members have the same rights to vote in a group that they're in as active members do." Of course nothing stopped you from logging on at least once a month or so to check on Cobra and to learn that you could vote in the election. You could've easily logged on and voted, nothing stopped you, you have the exact same rights as any other full member, treated exactly the same.

What hostility are you talking about? Spiderzed didn't take the group by force? The leader disappeared, and Spiderzed was basically a vice-president. She was already an administrator, trusted to keep the group functioning when Sage Carr was gone. And when Sage Carr disappeared for a prolonged period of time, she had two choices. Accept her responsibility and become the temporary leader until Sage Carr came back, or Don't do anything, and let the group go headless and figureless. Essentially, the group would fall to pieces if she chose to go with the latter, but she didn't, and therefore, performed her duties, and felt right to be the new temporary leader, with ALL the active members agreeing with her decision. It wasn't a circle of friends, it was the common consensus of ALL of the active members at the time. Nothing indicates that Spiderzed took the group by force. It was all justified, unlike your hostile takeover of the forum

"Yeah you lot knew it was an in-joke, but did anyone else? One of you even stated something to the effect of hoping that it wouldn't alienate potential new members. And outside of your group of friends it has for the most part." Of course people did, and it did not alienate potential new members. Diplomats kept coming in and talking to us, and we had new members joining pretty frequently. An inside joke is hands down not a legitimate reason for stealing a forum.

We do not want the proboards, we've already moved to our own domain named after Cobra. We don't really care about the "kills", we just want the wiki page and the name. We don't want to move and form another group because a small group basically stole a forum from us? No, just because you stole a forum does not mean you get to keep the group! In stealing the forums, you took out one of our means of communication, and that's all. The only basis of your claim to Cobra is an illegitimately gain forum. We don't shy away from our title and heritage because you stole our forum.--Krazymouse 20:00, 26 June 2011 (BST)

What Is This. I Don't Even..

---

Hi. My name is Master0fD0ritos but you can call me M0D. I'll go ahead and keep this short. Annabell has no claim to Cobra as she was demoted to diplomat by Sage after she had stepped down from her leadership position. Definition Yo. In other words she is a representative of an entity other than Cobra. Which means she is not a member of Cobra. Also. We didn't elect Annabell nor were we warned of her return. You should have emailed us. --Master0fD0ritos 02:03, 25 June 2011 (BST)

Page Move

Shouldn't this arbies be moved to a subpage?--THE Godfather of Яesensitized, Anime Sucks ^{Yalk | W! U! WMM| CC CPFOAS LOE ZHU | Яezzens} 00:33, 23 June 2011 (BST)

It does. Domino Harvey's comment above should probably be moved as well. ~ _{01:26, 23 June 2011 (UTC)}

i moved dat shit -- ϑ^anceϑ^anceℜ^evolution 05:35, 23 June 2011 (BST)

you forgot domino's shit. move it to the talk page --User:Sexualharrison05:50, 23 June 2011 (bst)

Guys, forget this. I'm the real leader of Cobra now, you can end this arbitration.--Yonnua Koponen ^{T G P} ^^^ 22:51, 23 June 2011 (BST)

as usual you're sense of humor is disappointing.--User:Sexualharrison04:43, 24 June 2011 (bst)

I'll give him a 2 for trying. Which I feel is very generous. - Goribus 22:35, 24 June 2011 (BST)

Comment

I just recently joined and then left Cobra. Mostly I left because the majority of the members RP themes didn't match the group theme. I wanted to join Cobra, not Prepubescent Anime Girls (who love Pwonies and bouncing their boobs around). Not that there is anything wrong with that, per say. Spiderzed and company were nice enough people. It's just that maybe a new group with a new theme for them would work out better for all concerned. Perhaps both factions here could agree to roll back Cobra's kill counter and Spiderzed and company could take their kills with them to their new group if that's a concern. Anyway, just my two cents.--The Baroness 22:27, 23 June 2011 (BST)

I'll talk to Annabell about it, I think that would be pretty reasonable. Also, since the real Cobra is back if you'd like to rejoin our side previous members can get back in just by requesting permission. We're a ruthless terrorist organization again, and not animu girls that love My Little Pony. We'd be happy to have you aboard, especially since you're obviously a fan of the show and of Cobra. -- Goribus 22:35, 23 June 2011 (BST)

Actually, http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php?title=Cobra&oldid=1248305 if you care to read right up there near the top where it says "We make no claim to actually BE Cobra, as they were fictional...". I choose that edit, since it was made by Bullgod. "You don't have to do what the group wants to do unless it's what you want to do. You don't have to do what I tell you to do, nor what anyone else tells you to do. Just don't expect anyone to listen to you either." This is how we do Cobra, it is up to the individual member. However, it seems with Annabell, you do have to do what the leader tells you. So, who is the real Cobra? --Kirsty Cotton 13:05, 24 June 2011 (BST)

Uh no. You still can do whatever you want in Cobra. Orders are still vague suggestions. However, we're at the very least attempting to be an homage to Cobra. I'm obviously not a cartoon character. But my character is implied to be a soldier of fortune. Also, as you've just seen by a neutral party yes your roleplay conflicts with what most people think of when they think of Cobra to the point that they didn't want to be a member of your group. Look, we both know that you lot aren't going to disband and we're not asking for that. You all know you'd be much happier with your own name and group identity and this is really about indignation. I get that, and it's fine. But at least I've been attempting to be civil. I've even been trying to not be dickish and be professional about the whole thing. Which apparently needs work. But I digress. -- Goribus 21:53, 24 June 2011 (BST)

Why not be civil from the beginning? Come on the forum and state your complaints. If you had approached as a member of Cobra rather than a hostile party, this could have been resolved on the board, most likely to the satisfaction of all parties. --Kirsty Cotton 22:36, 24 June 2011 (BST)

We approached as hostile members of Cobra. We figured it might be fun and both parties would have fun. Instead of being dragged into the current drama. Also there's the fact that currently there has been 3 Cobra Civil wars in the comics and one in the cartoon (albeit one in an alternate reality where Cobra had already won and therefore had no one else to fight but itslef). One is so recent that the trade paperback for it hasn't even come out yet. Oh and the fact that we believed not a single one of you would take us seriously. Because what's the first thing we found when we were made Cobra? That you were mocking us behind our backs with a veil of civility. Face it, we both know you wouldn't have taken it seriously and while you disagree with our methods I'm sure if you were in our shoes you may have done the same. - Goribus 23:03, 24 June 2011 (BST)

Hello, my name is President Skoll and I endorse Annabell Leigh as the true leader of Cobra. If Spiderzed wants to start a group based on Rainbow Brite, I'll endorse him for that.-- Skoll ^Die 00:34, 25 June 2011 (BST)

Rainbow Brite? Fuck that - Cutey's all about the Kitty. ~~ Chief Seagull ~~ ^talk 17:10, 25 June 2011 (BST)

Again, I will reiterate my point above based on what The Baroness has said. The group is not trying to be Cobra, but people hitting up the Cobra forum do so because they recognise the name from the 80s, an image reinforced by the wiki page, and when they decide to try and join they are bombarded by images stolen from a schoolgirls myspace page. Annabell had both the ability and (more importantly) the authority to put a stop to it and thankfully did so.   URGGGGGGGHTalk PSYCHOUTTalk STAN SATANTalk 01:14, 26 June 2011 (BST)

Mistitled

This case is mistitled: should be “Spiderzed vs Doc Ryleigh”, as these are the principals involved. (Cobra is the disputed page.) Shall I fix it, or would one of you gents care to? ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 23:11, 23 June 2011 (BST)

I would respectfully dispute that. I know I speak for several other members of Cobra as well as myself when I say that I consider the title absolutely apt. We do consider that this case is the group as is vs someone trying to eject us all and take control of our wiki page. Spiderzed is simply our leader and our representative. So please, do not retitle, it is fine as it stands. Domino Harvey 23:17, 23 June 2011 (BST)

I'm with revenant. In terms of the wiki, the case is trying to establish who is cobra's representative, not assuming that Spiderzed already is. The title should be changed immediately, especially since Spiderzed has pushed this in other cases before.--Yonnua Koponen ^{T G P} ^^^ 00:04, 24 June 2011 (BST)

I agree with Revenant and although this will shock everyone including myself I agree with Yon. As per precedent and wiki procedure this should be retitled for the reasons that both have listed. -- Goribus 00:20, 24 June 2011 (BST)

In the edit history you'll notice I said someone can change it at will since I was only moving it to what the header title said. Just do it, someone (dunno really what would be most right, tired)? -- ϑ^anceϑ^anceℜ^evolution 02:47, 24 June 2011 (BST)

Dun! Now, won't someone please pass the ? ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 04:37, 24 June 2011 (BST)

notice the nutsack on the bag --User:Sexualharrison04:41, 24 June 2011 (bst)

mmm buttered nuts. ~ _{04:47, 24 June 2011 (UTC)}

I'd rather not move it until the case is done. Right now it's asctetic and it's certainly not going to influence anything. Once it's over I'll move it to that title myself as it is obviously correct. --Karek^{maps 2.0?!} 10:11, 24 June 2011 (BST)

Personally, I don't care, since both the old and the new title would be factually correct. It's just a descriptor without any real meaning. -- Spiderzed█ 12:24, 24 June 2011 (BST)

Evidence Gathering

As I've seen today, Karek lacks proper computer access, and thus also the ability to take screenshots:

Karek

I'd provide links to show the things that bothered me the most but I haven't had a chance to get to an actual computer.

The remainder of my opening statement depends currently solely on a.) confirmation that my links to internal debates are still working and b.) me having screenies of those statements to confirm that I quote verbatim.

Obviously, I'd mistrust Doc Ryleigh's party to do this for me, as I consider it as very possible that they'd use the opportunity to delete or alter anything incriminating they don't want to see to come to the light of the arbitration.
At the same time, I'd understand if the other party would refuse me personal access to the old ProBoards in order tor retrieve what I need for the arbies, given that I could abuse that to gain unrelated knowledge to their detriment.

Karek, can you give an estimation of when your access might be restored?
If it isn't to be expected anytime soon, I make the following offer in order to keep the case going: I'll send precise directions to Sexualharrison and ask him to retrieve the necessary links and screenies (all of which would be from before the June '11 coup anyway).
Both parties have acknowledged him as neutral, and he still/already has access to the internal parts of the old ProBoards, so I hope everyone involved would agree that that might be the best and easiest course. -- Spiderzed█ 14:36, 26 June 2011 (BST)

have one at home just busy until tomorrow due to work stuffs. --Karek^{maps 2.0?!} 17:15, 26 June 2011 (BST)

Your stuff is done, also. Patience young padawan. --Karek^{maps 2.0?!} 23:55, 26 June 2011 (BST)

Sup! Need to get to bed now, but I will look over screenies tomorrow night after work and make sure I provide the relevant links in the right place. -- Spiderzed█ 00:06, 27 June 2011 (BST)

To interject, at this point I'd be happy to do whatever to speed things along if asked. Also given the fact that we gave Karek access to the forum it'd look pretty fucking bad for us to up and delete things. We have nothing to hide, nor do we need to play dirty. I'm confident that when everything's said and done we're going to win and I chose Karek precisely because he won't show bias. -- Goribus 00:30, 27 June 2011 (BST)

Ruling

Decent solution. I take it you're going to enforce the neutrality of the new disambig Cobra? -- Thadeous Oakley Talk 20:19, 1 July 2011 (BST)

Not the solution I was hoping for but it works. I'll be sniping pages for our new wiki page. We'll get some code and other stuff up later, but for now I'll be reserving some page space(s). Thanks for your time Karek. -- Goribus 20:56, 1 July 2011 (BST)

I don't think spamming redirects and claiming words like "real" and "original" fits Karek's vision, although I can't obviously speak for him. -- Thadeous Oakley Talk 21:04, 1 July 2011 (BST)

I agree - the "Real" and "Official" redirects are hardly neutral. They should either point to Cobra or not exist at all. ~~ Chief Seagull ~~ ^talk 21:53, 1 July 2011 (BST)

Hey Thad, look, someone using a constructive avenue of discussion. Take notes, keep them for the future. 21:54, 1 July 2011 (BST)

Considering how Spiderzed dubbed his forum "The Official Cobra Forums", I don't think his faction members can really say anything about 'neutral'. Also if I want to title my page "The Original Cobra" and redirect stuff to it I'm within my rights. Afterall Anabell's faction is the one with ties to the original group, not yours. Annabell's been a member of Cobra longer than your most senior member. Who is Mr Blahman. Also he was talking about the Cobra page being neutral, not our own pages. Or at least that's how I interpreted his ruling. -- Goribus 21:58, 1 July 2011 (BST)

We'll let Karek expand. --Rosslessness 21:59, 1 July 2011 (BST)

I personally don't have a problem with "Original", but as I've said, using "Real" and "Official" to only describe one faction on this wiki isn't neutral as it de-legitimises the other. Whether you like it or not, we're Cobras too. ~~ Chief Seagull ~~ ^talk 22:09, 1 July 2011 (BST)

I'll drop the "Real" and "Official" if you agree not to take them. I'd also like to ask you to remove the "Official" headline from your forums. I think that would be fair to everyone. -- Goribus 23:07, 1 July 2011 (BST)

As per Umbrella precedent, all redirects that aren't clearly specifically about a particular splinter group (e.g. Cobra (Spiderzed) or Cobra (Annabell Leigh)) should point to the disambig page, not to a particular splinter group. Doing so would violate the spirit of the arbies ruling, which is about silencing edit wars, not about making them wander to other areas.
As for our forums, arbies rule about wiki matters. How we represent ourselves outside of it isn't covered by it and can't be covered by it. -- Spiderzed█ 09:50, 2 July 2011 (BST)

Pretty much on the money. Redirects that serve no common use purpose generally are not going to stand up to any review on the wiki. That being said there's nothing stopping the from being made and then subsequently deleted other than the realization that it ultimately wastes our(sysops) time to no other effect. --Karek^{maps 2.0?!} 11:27, 2 July 2011 (BST)

As for Cobra itself, I'd prefer a plain disambiguation page with maybe a couple of sentences explaining the situation. Will later today draw up a draft, unless Karek beats me to it. Timelines can still be drawn up by the splinter groups on their own group page as considered sensible. -- Spiderzed█ 11:31, 2 July 2011 (BST)

I object to Spiderzed writing it up as much as he will object to me writing it up. A neutral party should be the one to write up the Disambig. -- Goribus 12:07, 2 July 2011 (BST)

I'm sure you crazy kids can hash out any issues you have via the usual editing process. ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 04:45, 3 July 2011 (BST)

Any permanent solution about the redirects? They'll get speedied eventually as they are unlinked and lack purpose. It's not my arb case, but beyond the disambig and the 2 group pages there is no need for any redirect at all methinks. -- Thadeous Oakley Talk 12:13, 2 July 2011 (BST)

Please stop warring about the redirects. Don't make us protect every single one.-- Thadeous Oakley Talk 12:18, 2 July 2011 (BST)

Fuck off. I'm the page owner of the redirects. I demand they be reverted to my edits and protected. I'm not going to redo them every time Spiderzed and his friends get a wild hair up their asses. It's either that or it's V/B cases. We can either do it the easy way (you all fuck off and leave my shit ::alone), or I drag you idiots into V/B just for the fuck of it. Your choice. -- Goribus 12:23, 2 July 2011 (BST)

Vandal banning please. --Rosslessness 12:24, 2 July 2011 (BST)

Weak your grip on UDWiki guidelines is. Criterion 3, anyone? -- Spiderzed█ 12:26, 2 July 2011 (BST)

You don't actually "own" those redirects though. And like Spiderzed said (and Karek agreed with, see above) redirects that are not specifically tied to one group or another should lead to the disambig. (Although I personally prefer to see them gone altogether). You can demand all you want, but this isn't the way to be going about and your chances at A/VB are slim. -- Thadeous Oakley Talk 12:28, 2 July 2011 (BST)

I've just vandal banned myself for your convenience. --Rosslessness 12:31, 2 July 2011 (BST)

I've linked this about a thousand fucking times - Hurr durr how do sub-teams work? I'll use short sentences so you can understand. I don't have the time to do write ups now. I did redirects to reserve them. Each of those fronts represented Cobra. My team is Cobra. Therefore they represent my team. Since I can't simply call my team "Cobra" here, it's "The Original Cobra". So all of those fronts? They're fronts of "The Original Cobra." If I have to copy pasta shit straight over from a Joewiki to spite you so as to keep my pages, I will. Have a good day, and go fuck yourselves. I'm sick of dealing with this stupid wiki's beuracracy already. Karek's like the only one of you fuckwits with his head on straight. Go ahead and delete the "real" and "official" shit. But the other stuff stays. I'll fight you for it if I have to. -- Goribus 12:38, 2 July 2011 (BST)

Its never been disputed that they aren't cobra fronts dear fellow, that's a given. If their sub teams of your group the standard naming convention of such groups would be Cobra (whichever one you are)/Name of the sub group. Once those pages were created, you could use the current redirects to direct to those pages. Of course if spiderzed created a page entitled Cobra (The Other One)/Exactly the same team name. Id say that would be a clear cut case of copying your ownership and say the redirects should remain as you originally created them. --Rosslessness 12:48, 2 July 2011 (BST)

Provided they're used and so don't fall under crit 3 for speedy deletion, why should any of the uncontentious redirects be deleted? We've already seen admissions that all of the GI Joe jokes are considered fair and neutral, and if Goribus wants to use them as links when doing his Cobra namespace, then let him. The contentious stuff, the "real" and "official" stuff, he's already dropped any claim to. I dunno about you guys but that looks like a civil enough end to that. 14:06, 2 July 2011 (BST)

Where's the joke in it? Looks to me like he's just claiming every single page he can think of with any relation whatsoever to Cobra with the sole intention that 'teh enemy' can't have them, with no way of developing them all past what would be required to keep them under his own exclusive control (ie. a link here or there) -- boxy 14:21, 2 July 2011 (BST)

As those redirects are related to the fictional organization both groups are losely based on, they should link to the disambig, if they have to exist at all. Else, they are C3 fodder. -- Spiderzed█ 14:57, 2 July 2011 (BST)

Please don't make me do up a template for you guys too. Funken fanbois -- boxy 13:38, 2 July 2011 (BST)

Cobra/Joining You missed unprotecting at least one sub-page. I'm going to go ahead and blank the sub-pages for Cobra that exist for now. As they're for the group that was disambigged and serve no purpose. I'd put them up for deletions, but I'm banking that sooner or later only one group is going to be left and I don't want to destroy something I intend on reclaiming. -- Goribus 23:33, 4 July 2011 (BST)

Disambig

As no one else has come forward with concrete proposals, I have whipped up a disambig text for use on Cobra: User:Spiderzed/CobraDisambig
I have largely drawn from the text of the Umbrella disambig, so there should be little room for argument. -- Spiderzed█ 10:15, 3 July 2011 (BST)

…Cobra (group)? Seriously? They're both groups, and that's not exactly an unambiguous name. ᚱᛁᚹᛖᚾᚨᚾᛏ 11:16, 3 July 2011 (BST)

We stick with our original tag, which logically leads to Cobra (group). Shouldn't be a problem, as the other group seems to switch to The Original Cobra. -- Spiderzed█ 11:19, 3 July 2011 (BST)

Cobra (group) should redirect to the general Cobra disambig. Why don't you just call your group "New Cobra" or "The New Cobra" or something that sets you apart from us? Oh and you should probably come up with something for your page that's not blatantly lifted from Bullgod, Annabell, Edward Axworthy, and other members of the group that aren't in your clan.

Also I just so happened to have whipped up a disambig text for use on Cobra as well. I'll offer it as a counter proposal: User:Goribus/CobraDisambig

P.S. Quit updating so fucking fast! - Goribus 11:21, 3 July 2011 (BST)

Hugely relevant precedent. Turned down in A/D and kept on the Umbrella disambig page for nearly a year now. Clearly, XY (group) is a viable descriptor.
As for your disambig, it lacks alphabetical sorting. -- Spiderzed█ 11:27, 3 July 2011 (BST)

You should still fix your plagiarized content though. If anyone has a right to that it's us as Annabell was as far as I know, a founding member of the group and a former leader. I'm fine with you keeping the design, and some of the other shit. But I'm not fine with you using their work on your page. I don't think it's asking much that you write your own shit, or use your own write ups. -- Goribus 11:42, 3 July 2011 (BST)

Fuckin' gold. You realize neither of you actually own anything related to Cobra? Everything resides with Marvel. Plagiarized, oh the irony.-- Thadeous Oakley Talk 11:45, 3 July 2011 (BST)

Read the page fuckwit, and then go check out the Cobra page. Fuck around with the history and you'll see that the exact writeup in his page is on that page's history. It's like me copying an article and then pasting it into another article's space. Bullgod is the founder, Annabell is the leader of the faction I belong to, Edward Axworthy is a member of the same faction, and almost every word on that page was written by them. If anyone has a claim to it we do. I don't think it's asking a lot for Spiderzed to write an article about his group in his own words. Copying it word for word from the Cobra page that got disambiged defeats the point of getting it disambigged doesn't it? -- Goribus 12:03, 3 July 2011 (BST)

Actually, he can. Example: Recall a previous group who had their page copied. There was some anger over it, yet the new group was able to keep the content on their page and the page itself. As for plagiarism, recall that in the edit window, there is the following disclaimer: "Please note that all contributions to The Urban Dead Wiki may be edited, altered, or removed by other contributors. If you do not want your writing to be edited mercilessly, then do not submit it here." Now, if you want to cite copyright of your content, there is a policy which would allow you a means to force them to remove their page for copyright infringement. However, that would result in the death of your group's page and images. I honestly wouldn't make that sort of argument too much, if I were you, unless we want to actually start following that policy. --Akule ^{Maker of fine, hand-crafted UDWiki sass since 2006 -- Akule School's back in session™} 12:25, 4 July 2011 (BST)

Small note, what's up with this? -- Thadeous Oakley Talk 11:32, 3 July 2011 (BST)

Undoing his redirect to redirect to my content page. I created the redirect as a placeholder for content. Then I made the content. I don't see what's hard to understand about thi- OH. I'm sorry. You're Thad. Well a competent SysOP will be by to explain it to you no doubt. -- Goribus 11:38, 3 July 2011 (BST)

Actually he's undoing your edit, might up your glasses on. I'm merely pointing that if you guys start arguing about redirects as well, it probably should be turned into a disambig as well, lame as this is. -- Thadeous Oakley Talk 11:42, 3 July 2011 (BST)

Oh damn. You were being helpful to me... A...are you the real Thad? Anyway I created the original page to redirect to my content. All of the redirects were actually placeholders until I could create the content. I don't have the time to be here all day. Which is why I largely ignore this place unless I have business here.

Anyway I think that Spiderzed has no rightful claim to that page. Because A) I created it to redirect to my Extensive Enterprises, and B) I'm not going to play this reverting game with him over literally every link I created. I'll have the redirects protected if I have to. -- Goribus 11:45, 3 July 2011 (BST)

Neither of you owns the redirect though and....oh fuck it, not doing that discussion again. Just wait for Karek, and ask him. He's going to have to solve these issues. -- Thadeous Oakley Talk 11:48, 3 July 2011 (BST)

Extensive Enterprises is since August 2010 linked to from an external group in reference to Sally A Summers (who is on the death list of the NSU, the precursor group of Combat 18). As redirects are community pages and therefore need to be NPOV, there is no other acceptable way but to link to relevant group as recognized by outsiders for nearly a year now.
Otherwise, as Thad. If anyone can sort this out, it's Karek. -- Spiderzed█ 11:54, 3 July 2011 (BST)

If you want to make that argument, it should link to Cobra then, rather than to either splinter. After all, the group that was being referred to and was linked was the version of Cobra that existed at that time, and their wiki page is Cobra. Sally's involvement is immaterial since Sally wasn't linked. —Aichon— 22:48, 3 July 2011 (BST)

Cute, but Cobra_(Group) redirects to Cobra. So Cobra needs to be wiped/blanked for now. Possibly just with an explanation that a disambig is in progress and will be applied to the page. A disambig was declared and advertising his group on the main page violates the spirit of the disambig. Until an article is written up and chosen for the new Disambig that page shouldn't advertise either group. -- Goribus 05:21, 4 July 2011 (BST)

Actually it doesn't. It just has a custom title. In any event I went ahead and unprtected the page and threw on {{disambig}} to get the ball rolling. I don't mind writing up a nuetral page for it if needed. Otherwise, anyone can write it now that the page is unprotected. ~ _{06:25, 4 July 2011 (UTC)}

Custom title removed. Should also be moved to a different parenthetical as the point of that was to clarify the unique identity of the groups not to be used to claim validity. I thought that had been clear. Also custom titles are prohibited by policy last I checked, has that changed? --Karek^{maps 2.0?!} 06:32, 4 July 2011 (BST)

Pretty sure Custom Title is not against policy. It was the Amazing is Watching title that got deleted iirc. ~ _{06:37, 4 July 2011 (UTC)}

I think this policy is the one you were referring to. In it is states that custom titles are allowed under a few circumstances:

UDWiki:Administration/Policy Discussion/Prohibiting Content Outside of the Normal Page Area said:

The exceptions to this policy would be: Any page that can be shown to have a clear need to violate the policy. In the case of custom page titles, page titles that serve a constructive purpose, so long as the custom titles are clearly in good faith and do not violate other policies. Examples would be extremely long titles being shortened, or users choosing to display names different than their user names (disallowing impersonation, or titles significantly unrelated to their user names, unless the unrelated titles are established as being synonymous with said users).

So really it's a matter of whether or not it was good faith or does not violate any other policy. ~ _{06:49, 4 July 2011 (UTC)}

I've gone ahead and edited the Cobra page with a neutral write up. Since there's talk of Spiderzed having to rename his page, I'll just leave it as is for now until it's decided. I've organized the groups into chronological order of creation as well. -- Goribus 07:13, 4 July 2011 (BST)

All I was pointing out was that Spider's logic was faulty. Nothing more than that. I have no idea about this other stuff you're talking about (Cobra (Group) has never redirected to Cobra, and at the time that I wrote my comment, Cobra was a disambiguation page with a minimal summary, and certainly was not an advertisement), nor do I understand the relevance. That said, I don't need or even want to have it explained. I hate messes like these, but I hate bad logic more. —Aichon— 08:29, 4 July 2011 (BST)

Custom title removed. Should also be moved to a different parenthetical as the point of that was to clarify the unique identity of the groups not to be used to claim validity. I thought that had been clear. Also custom titles are prohibited by policy last I checked, has that changed? --Karekmaps 2.0?! 06:32, 4 July 2011 (BST)

I'd make it a quote like above but I really don't care enough to learn what to chop out of the code above and to modify it. If you want to edit it to do so then be my guest. But I've bolded the important part of the message. If I'm reading that correctly Karek has decided that Cobra (Group) is too vague and that Spiderzed may need to put something else in parenthesis. I was merely covering my bases with the statement. There's nothing faulty with my logic. It's pretty plainly stated that Spiderzed might need to change the name of his page. -- Goribus 12:58, 4 July 2011 (BST)

To be clear, I never said anything about your logic. I said that Spider's was faulty when he argued that Extensive Enterprises should link to his group's page. I can understand covering your bases though. :P —Aichon— 21:47, 4 July 2011 (BST)

Disambig conflict related: Before this gets any messier than it is, I'd highly recommend sorting this with a completely new arbitration case, leaving the ruling given in this one as the ground 'rules' for the second one (karek as same arbitrator to make things simpler too even), it might make things a little better to base the debate from a place that's already set in stone, and might make it a bit easier to follow. It's just my opinion from a fairly passive observer who will never have much say but it's food for thought, advantages obviously being that you don't have to have these splinter discussions over several talk and admin pages, while also reverting. -- ϑ^anceϑ^anceℜ^evolution 12:30, 3 July 2011 (BST)

I'm not going through another arbitration when we can do the most logical thing. Disambig every single redirect I've made. Disambigs for everyone. That way we're both happy and the problem is solved. Holy shit. A simple solution that everyone would be happy with. If I gave a fuck about this wiki, I should run for SysOP on it. My radical ideas would revolutionize things. Before the SysOP staff burned me at the stake for being a witch. -- Goribus 21:42, 3 July 2011 (BST)

Compromise

Why don't you make the original cobra page like DARIS page, then create a disambiguation page off of that, like this? The disambiguation page can have the content that is currently on the Cobra page (that explains the struggle), then you revert the Cobra page back to Sage Carr's last edit, slap on the link to the disambiguation page, and make the original group inactive. This allows for Spiderzed to keep his edit on their group's new page, as the current color scheme and layout was designed by him, and it can maintain Goribus's assertions that after Spiderzed took over, the group changed to something else (as the Cobra page will look completely different from Spiderzed's). What do you think? --Akule ^{Maker of fine, hand-crafted UDWiki sass since 2006 -- Akule School's back in session™} 12:41, 4 July 2011 (BST)

I think you should run for SysOP here Akule. However I would still like the textual write up for Spiderzed's page to be new material. As his group is not the Cobra of old, nor is it affiliated with it. If anyone has the right to straight copy things from the old page it should be the group that's recognized as the original Cobra. Which would be us by default as we have two founding members. One of which is our leader. However for the sake of argument and compromise we'll write up our own page and they'll do the same. If those additional terms are agreed to I would agree. All I ask is that he write a page for his group in his own words as we've already complied. -- Goribus 12:52, 4 July 2011 (BST)

Honestly, I think that's one of the inherent arguments that have come up between the two groups. You both wish to claim that you are stemming from the original cobra, which is factually accurate, as both groups were part of the same original group. Neither want to allow the other to make the same claim, but both want to make it for themselves. I think that you both should avoid making any claims that either is or is not the original cobra group. Obviously, if you were the original cobra group, you wouldn't be in this situation, as you'd both be in the same group. Any claim to being the original group or that the opposite group is not the original group will just continue the problem, and will likely result in further issues, and A/A/A/VB cases. Now, for the naming problem, I would contend that since Spiderzed's group cites on their page that they are not the terrorist organization in GI Joe, that they maintain the name Cobra (group), while your group should be called Cobra Command, which is the actual name of the Cobra organization, as you are contending to be the actual terrorist organization from GI Joe. That will get rid of the basic assertions in the group names that one is more original than the other, but will keep the spirit of both groups. Then Goribus's group can write on their page how they hate fanboys who impersonate them and all that they stand for, and Spiderzed's group can write on their page how they hate delusional people who actually believe that they are a fictional group. However, that should be for more of your "reasons for hating one another in the game" instead of being a vehicle to piss each other off on the wiki. UD is supposed to be fun, and you both obviously like GI Joe AND like PKing people, which is something that you have in common. So we should be able to get it to the point where you both can at least be civil to one another on here, and enjoy the game. --Akule ^{Maker of fine, hand-crafted UDWiki sass since 2006 -- Akule School's back in session™} 13:28, 4 July 2011 (BST)

The only real problems with that are that they're using Cobra not Cobra Command as their group tag in-game and that that naming structure doesn't help people trying to read about cobra/s. --Karek^{maps 2.0?!} 16:32, 4 July 2011 (BST)

Easy enough to fix. Cobra (Command). --Akule ^{Maker of fine, hand-crafted UDWiki sass since 2006 -- Akule School's back in session™} 20:56, 4 July 2011 (BST)

I'd be fine with Akule's proposal of Cobra (Group) and Cobra (Command). As for Cobra itself, I'd prefer a clean disambig, unless someone thinks the old page should be preserved. -- Spiderzed█ 23:43, 4 July 2011 (BST)

He's talking about renaming your group's wikipage to Cobra Command, not you getting to be Cobra (Group) and us be forced to change to Cobra Command. Just thought I'd point that out for you since you're under the wrong impression. -- Goribus 00:26, 5 July 2011 (BST)

Akule said:

they maintain the name Cobra (group), while your group should be called Cobra Command

- From Akule's text wall above.--Yonnua Koponen ^{T G P} ^^^ 00:47, 5 July 2011 (BST)

Except we're not saying that we're the fictional group. We're the original Cobra in UD. Which was not ever claiming to be the fictional group. Which is why I named the group page The Original Cobra. As we see ourselves as the original group in UD and if something as vague as Cobra (Group) is acceptable for his wiki page, than The Original Cobra most certainly is as well for ours. We still refer to the actual entity as Cobra. And while this wiki recognizes Spiderzed's group as a Cobra, we do not. We're being civil however, but we're fighting for fairness. As soon as everything is handled to the letter of WIKI LAW The Original Cobra will have no interest in Spiderzed's group on this wiki. -- Goribus 01:14, 5 July 2011 (BST)

Here's an example of what I thought should be on the disambiguation page. Simple, and to the point. Now, disambiguation pages are alphabetical, which is why I ordered it the way I did. Obviously when you get the group names hashed out, we can finalize it. --Akule ^{Maker of fine, hand-crafted UDWiki sass since 2006 -- Akule School's back in session™} 13:03, 4 July 2011 (BST)

Akules's assertion seems best to me. There is a lot of group related discussion on Talk:Cobra. That to me seems reason enough to keep Cobra as a group page, both factions take naming of their choice (hopefully that debate can be settled without much more peen waving) with a requirement that both keep NPOV statements including a link to Cobra (disambiguation). Of course that wasn't the ruling but I'm sure if both factions agree Karei can make an addendum to hisnruling. ~ _{01:32, 5 July 2011 (UTC)}

Actually what should happen to the page is that Akule's assertion should be used. I would very much like that page to be remembered as the way Sage had left it. I would even go so far as to say that once it's reverted and the disambig write up is added to the top of it, it should be protected so neither group can edit it until there is only one group left. If there is no dispute over group ownership then it should revert to the group that still exists correct?

If you mean that we should both write up NPOV articles about our groups with a link to the disambig as we're both claiming to be said group then I would find that acceptable and would agree to it. -- Goribus 01:48, 5 July 2011 (BST)