UDWiki:Administration/Arbitration/Krazy Monkey vs Finis Valorum
Krazy Monkey vs User:Finis Valorum
He's messing around with Sacred Ground Policy Breakers, changing the rules of the page because someone put him on it. It says clearly on the page (before he started messing around): If you feel your inclusion on this list is a mistake or there is a valid reason you killed a zombie at a cemetery then please discuss on the talk page.
Despite that, he decided to take the law upon himself and remove his profile from the list while sticking in a new stipulation: Do not add people on mere hearsay. Kills between groups and individuals who are in conflict with each other will not be counted. Any bad faith inclusion must be reverted on sight. and and a piece of evidence (in the form of a screenshot), or it didn't happen.
We then got into a rather large revert war as I believe that the page should be left as it was here when Sexylegsread first reverted it from Finis's edits. This is the page as it currently stands: Sacred Ground Policy Breakers with Finis's edits as he refuses to keep it at the original version. -- Cheeseman W!RandomTalk 10:46, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
- I'll offer to Arbitrate, might be interesting.--Karekmaps?! 17:04, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
- I accept Karek. Doubt Finis will though. -- Cheeseman W!RandomTalk 17:38, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
- Oh, really? I too accept Karek.--Finis Valorum
- I accept Karek. Doubt Finis will though. -- Cheeseman W!RandomTalk 17:38, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
Ok then, let's get started. Finis first since he's the one with the problem with the pages current content. --Karekmaps?! 01:31, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
User:Finis Valorum
Only Finis is to comment under this header
My attention was first drawn to the SGPB page when someone (a guy who is getting his ass kicked in-game, obviously) made this blatant bad faith edit (he later admits the lack of any proof whatsoever). I then noticed the policy for adding is a clear disregard of verifiability and neutrality. For example, it is stated that: you must have the profile link of the violator, or it didn't happen. Simply preposterous. The very idea that a profile can be used as proof for someone's actions defies flawless logic. In fact, anyone can add whomever they want at their whim without any kind of justification but the person accused is forced to justify his removal from the list. I doubt anyone has paid any attention to this fact until now. Basically, the policy on that page encourages abuse. I didn't operate the changes just because I wanted to get off a list, I did to seal a breach in the system by eliminating this obvious possibility of griefing.--Finis Valorum
User:Krazy Monkey
Only Krazy Monkey(a.k.a., and henceforth, Cheeseman) is to comment under this header
Ok. My beef is that Finis went ahead and changed the rules of a page that does not belong to him (Sacred Ground Policy Breakers), and never has, purely because his name was added to the list [1]. It says very clearly on the page: If you feel your inclusion on this list is a mistake or there is a valid reason you killed a zombie at a cemetery then please discuss on the talk page. But Finis went and removed his name [2] without doing this, sparking off this argument. It then went into an all out revert war between myself, Sexylegsread, Johnny Crow and Lh778 against Finis. I eventually got fed up of this and took it here as he refused to leave the page alone.
Basically, my case is that Finis should have left the rules as they stand now, [3] and gone to the talk page to get his name removed, and avoided this altogether. If you don't like the way its run, make your own page. Don't take over someone else's and change rules just because you disagree with it.
I do realise that the guys who added his name to the list (Johnny Crow and Lh778) have a bit of a thing against Finis, but the best thing to do would have been to ignore them and not give them reason to work him up and end up with a huge list of reverts.
What I want out of this, is Finis promising to leave the page alone as it currently is, with no changes to the rules without a proper discussion on the talk page. However, I have no problems with him removing his name from the list, as I think it was put there just to grief him. -- Cheese 21:30, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Ruling
One thing first.
- The page is not an owned page. Yes discussion is the appropriate way to go about making an edit to the page content but, I can't actually see anything that should need discussion in Finis' edit to the rules, it actually seems pretty common sense and something that should have been there to start. It's something that's actually pretty standard in group hosted PKer lists(as I'm sure both of you know as I know you both have experience with them).
Now, for the ruling. I believe, as this case shows, to prevent further drama the rule change Finis made is needed on that page, however, since there is already a method of dealing with that on the page itself it should be left undone until such time as there has been discussion of the change on the talk page as it is actually a pretty big change to the pages system and will basically invalidate the whole contents of the page(that's the type of thing that needs discussing). Similarly Finis will be removed from the page I see nothing that says there is any such evidence for him killing zombies at cemeteries. --Karekmaps?! 23:30, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
