UDWiki:Administration/Arbitration/Boxy vs Jack's Cold Sweat and Chimera

Administration Services — Protection. This page has been protected against editing. See the archive of recent actions or the Protections log.

Boxy vs. Jack's Cold Sweat and Chimera

I want Jack's Cold Sweat and Chimera to leave the BRRC page alone. I will make my case when an arbitrator is decided upon. I'll accept pretty much anyone on the list -- boxy ^{talk • i} 02:27 22 January 2008 (BST)

Discussion between these statements has been moved to the Talk Page --> -- Cheeseman ^W!RandomTalk 12:44, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh hai. I can has chooz iscariot? Lolz. --Chimera 06:01, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

As both parties have agreed on myself as arbitrator, I am happy to move on with this case. Can a non-involved party please move all this pre-debate to the talk page.

Its done. :) -- Cheeseman ^W!RandomTalk 12:41, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Please make your opening statement Boxy, as completely as possible with links if you feel the need.

(Sorry about not even formatting this at the moment guys, I'm back at work and have builders in the pub as well) -- Iscariot 01:21, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Boxy's case

It has become increasingly clear to me that Jack and Chimera are trying to take over the Brain Rot Revive Clinic name for their own use after having ensured that the group went defunct by barricading their revive clinic, destroying their generators and PKing their staff over a very long period of time. They are enemies of the BRRC.

• Chimera7 - showing her group affiliation as both MSC and BRRC.
• Jack's Cold Sweat - showing the group as Malton Skeet Club.
• Chimera8 - an alt that is on the BRRC DNR list.

As you can see from this link, both Jack and Chimera have long been on the BRRC do not revive list (until Chimera took herself and Jack off). They are enemies with a long history of generator killing and barricading the rot revive clinic, that was set up to be un-barricaded at all times.

This link shows that Chimera is an enemy who killed clinic staff at least a year ago, and this link shows that they were still enemies 10 months later. And lastly, another link from the official BRRC forum, documenting the fact that at the end Jack and Chimera were still viewed by BRRC members as griefers occupying their clinic. That was the last thread posted on their forum.

The BRRC was killed off by the Malton Skeet Club, and instead of making their own wiki page, the MSC is trying to take over the good will that the BRRC built up by hijacking their wiki group page.

The only justification they have made for doing this, is that the one member of BRRC who is still in the area is sick of the griefing and doesn't care. He never edit their wiki page himself, and as far as I can tell was never in a leadership role. It's clear to me that the group has disbanded, with only solitary remnant members surviving. Unless the old leadership hand over control to Chimera there is no way someone, who has for over a year been considered by the group to be a griefer, should be taking over their page.

I ask that I be allowed to roll back the BRRC (and all sub-pages) to before Jack and Chimera started hijacking it, move the "Current Events" section to the talk page, and put it up for protection. Frankly, the more I looked into this case, the more I believe I should have taken it straight to A/VB -- boxy ^{talk • i} 04:13 26 January 2008 (BST)

QUESTION

Hi, I'd like to ask a question before I make my case, since I am new to the wiki. What exactly am I required to prove in terms of an arbitration case? Do I need to disprove Boxy's statements, such as his claim that I "PKed the BRRC out of existence"? It seems as if I am being asked to disprove allegations made by the TZH in the case below, and I'd like to avoid another circus like that, if possible. I was under the impression that the only reason to bring an arbitration case was if someone thought I made edits in bad faith. Yet, it seems to me that Boxy has not pointed to any instances of bad faith edits, but rather is bringing up events from the past and unproven allegations made by the TZH. I may have been perhaps a little overzealous in my edits, but that is due to my unfamiliarity with wiki policies rather than any bad faith on my part. How much of this in game drama is appropriate to discuss in regards to a wiki matter? I would also like to add that Jack has removed himself from this case, and I'd like to know if I'm required to address allegations made against him as well. Thanks again, --Chimera 09:22, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

You are in Jack's group, you are his right hand man. You gave him permission to edit the BRRC page on the premise that you were a "member". His actions are tied to yours. You are obviously in this together -- boxy ^{talk • i} 12:50 26 January 2008 (BST)

I know I'm not the Arbitrator but I'm gonna answer this quickly. Basically, you argue your reasons for editing the page and if possible provide links to any specific edits that back up your statements. Then Boxy'll make a rebuttal, then you'll get a chance to counter the rebuttal if you wish. Then a ruling is reached by the Arby. Simple enough. -- Cheeseman ^W!RandomTalk 12:59, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I am not Jack's "right hand man." That's a strange presumption. I'd like to hear from the arbitrator regarding this matter. I do not think it's fair that my actions are not separate from somebody else's. Jack has removed himself from this case and he had agreed not to touch the BRRC page (and kept his word) before this case had even started. I still think that this case is very premature as I would have gladly adhered to the rules if somebody would have given me some guidance. I can't stress enough that I'm new here, and if I had known that moving large sections of a page were going to raise eyebrows I would've simply left an update! Why not just move all that junk that was under "current events" to the talk page, where it belongs? Yes, seems I may have mistakenly moved it to archives...sorry for committing such a heinous crime. As for the rest of the changes, they are harmless enough, but I'm certainly not attached to them. I was trying to update the wiki to reflect the current state of affairs. Seems like this wiki, and this arbitration page in particular, is more of a drama-arena than anything. And I still haven't been told which edits I made were in bad faith! What on earth am I here to defend? My in game behavior? Boxy's emotions are riled up and this has been blown way out of proportion, and gone far beyond the scope of wiki arbitration. Anyway, I will make my "opening statement" after I have had my questions answered from Iscariot. Thanks --Chimera 19:58, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

You arn't just trying to clean up the current events section. You are taking over your vanquished enemies wiki page. Here's a link of you changing their forum link to one of your own, and here is a link of Jack removing references to the MSC taking over Pippard that was placed there by a real member of the BRRC -- boxy ^{talk • i} 00:24 27 January 2008 (BST)

Boxy, from those links alone this belongs in A/VB not Arbitration, bad faith alterations to a group page by members not in the group and outside of the NPOV section. They obviously know what they are doing and that they shouldn't be doing it by the attempts to say they are in the group before changing the information, but, there is little reason for the blanking of sections of the groups' page or the changing the forum link to a false one.--Karek^maps?! 01:02, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

We were previously enemies, but we have been working together for some time now. We have all contributed to reviving rotters. So I wished to join the group, and I asked, and the members that were around said it was fine. I did not vanquish their group. We had objections to the way things were run and we battled it out - nobody won. The Big Bash came through and decimated South Blythville. This was the point where many BRRC members either stopped playing or wandered off. Believe me, I had nothing to do with the Big Bash. I changed the forum link in order to allow rotters a way to request revives. The current forum is dead and it isn't possible for someone not already registered to post, because it is extremely difficult to get registered. Like I said - I am not attached to the forum changes. I wanted to provide a service. If you think it's better to provide a link to a dead forum, then by all means I'll change it back. We had our differences in the past, but that was a LONG time ago. We work together now. Take a look at the links you posted, boxy - they are OLD. The time that has elapsed since the last conflict is greater than the entire period of the conflict. It was my understanding that the wiki was supposed to be a fluid source of information, and was to be updated as circumstances changed. As far as I can remember no conflict has occurred since around last February - nearly one year ago! I'm not sure how many times I can repeat this - we are no longer enemies, we work together. Can you please consider this fact instead of relying on year old evidence? Thank you --Chimera 05:40, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Of course the links I gave are old... the group disbanded. They gave up trying to keep their clinic going because you kept barricading it up, and killing the generators. The rotters couldn't get in to get a revive without knocking down the cades from EHB. That was the whole point of the BRRC, keeping the Pippard NT building open and powered so that rotters could just walk in and get a revive, as long as they weren't on the DNR list. You disagreed with their policy of no barricades, which is your right, you set about ensuring that they were put up... and in the long run, you won. That doesn't give you the right to take over their group name and change their policies to make it look like they agree with your policies. Make your own damn page, leave theirs alone until the leaders (or at least the ones that set up the BRRC page) say they give you permission to take over -- boxy ^{talk • i} 13:20 27 January 2008 (BST)

Right. I apologise to all for my tardiness in dealing with this case, work and plumbers have interfered, that should be finshed in the next 24 hours (Note, should, fucking plumbers). In response to Chimera's questions, I'm happy to let Cheeseman's response stand (and would prefer it to be left on this page). This arbitration concerns wiki matters only, in-game disputes are between the players themselves and Kevan. From what I understand from the precedents that I have read, the primary concern of the arbitrator must be wiki matter. I'd thank the participants to limit themselves to that or provide relevant precedent.

Chimera - I'd like you to speak on the matter Boxy has raised regarding the wiki, the page in question, your right to alter that page and any pertinent history surrounding such matters. I will not allow this to devolve into a flame war. There are other pages to do so if you wish to resort to that course of action.

In regards to Karek's point that Boxy might have taken the matter to Vandalism, Boxy has already mentioned this as a possible course of action. Whether this acceptable is up to the Admin panel, not myself. I will attempt to resolve the arbitration case as put before me. The fact that Boxy has maintained this process should be viewed favourable due to the fact he is attempting to solve his dispute within the confines of the community.

Chimera, please make your opening statement. -- Iscariot 01:12, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

My point was this is a case over whether or not the edits were in bad faith, not whether it's more informative or really over the content of the article. As such it has no place in Arbitration and is exactly the kind of thing that should be dealt with in A/VB. This is just another case of Arbitration being used in the vandal escalation process, which is not Arbitrations purpose.--Karek^maps?! 02:19, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for answering my questions, Iscariot. I have issues with plumbers myself this week, and have had little time to fool around with wiki matters. I wanted to let you know that I will be posting in the (hopefully) near future, once I have had time to review prior cases and formulate my statement. Good luck with your pipes! --Chimera 08:12, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Case Withdrawn

I have been in email contact with the oldest member of the BRRC that I could find on the wiki, Docdead, and after quite some discussion with Chimera, he has decided to allow her to be listed as the co-leader of the group. As such I will drop this arbitration case, and encourage them to keep all discussion off the main page, and instead encourage the use of the talk page.
R.I.P. BRRC -- boxy ^{talk • i} 12:55 2 February 2008 (BST)