UDWiki:Administration/Arbitration/Happykook vs Iscariot

Happykook vs Iscariot

Well, since there is no template here, i'm just going to post my case! I Happykook want to file a harrassment/NPOV War/Block on Iscariot who has continued to Undo everything i Wiki, and harrass me in game with constant PKing. I have screenshots to prove the in game harrassment. I'd Like Cheeseman to Arbitrate.--Happykook 23:50, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I will arbitrate this case if Iscariot agrees. I have a knowledge of the background to this case and understand what is going on. -- Cheese 23:56, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree to the arbitration process, on condition that the complaint (i.e. the basis of the issue the arbitrator will rule on) is clarified immensely. At the moment it is very vague. I require specifics. With all respect to Cheeseman, who has already gone out of his way to assist the community in this matter, my first choice for arbitrator would be Karek. -- Iscariot 00:03, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I'll accept this case...as a backup-ish type of choice for arbitrator. --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ ^{#nerftemplatedsigs} 00:05, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure what the case entails, as the first thing is a little vague but, I'll arbitrate if that is what both parties wish.--Karek^maps?! 03:26, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I will not accept Karek as he is biased to Iscariot's side. I will accent Cheeseman.--Happykook 12:28, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Um...seeing what you want Iscariot tried, I don't think you can bring up any in-game issues here...Only wiki issues... --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ ^{#nerftemplatedsigs} 12:33, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I think it's mainly the Wiki Issue thats the problem to be honest, and that's all a ruling is based on. In-Game issues are not set::tled here. -- Cheese 12:46, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

No, my purpose here is to stop him from reverting everything i add to the wiki. I am simply pointing out the maturity level here in that he's resorted to pking in game now. Karek is biased to Iscariot's side and has taken his side throughout this problem, ergo, Karek is not an acceptable Arbitrator. I will accept Cheeseman or Axe Hack.--Happykook 14:04, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I can arbitrate if you want, as I have had no contact or partiality to either party. --ZsL 15:15, 21 March 2008 (UTC) I can arbitrate too, though to be honest it looks like you've already got some very good arbitrators already....--Seventythree^Talk 15:28, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I offer my serices as well.--Thekooks 16:44, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to know why Karek is biased towards me. -- Iscariot 17:56, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Karek has taken your stance on the Update issue, and has posted as such on the main talk page. An arbiter cannot be one who has voiced themselves as being pro or con a side, he has chosen a side (yours) so he's not eligible to be non-partial. I will accept Cheeseman, Axe Hack, Zombie Slayer, SeventyThree, or Thekooks as arbiters, all have been impartial throughout this process, why won't you pick someone who has been impartial this whole time?--Happykook 18:06, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to point out that i'm trying my hardest to get this arbitrated and over, Iscariot is the one stalling this.--Happykook 18:10, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I would just except Karek, she is one of the more un-biased people on this wiki if you ask me.... I'm sure she wouldn't take sides... and If you want this to be over as soon as possible, you should just except Karek. Otherwise I'd go with Cheese--/~Rakuen~\^Talk I Still Love Grim 20:21, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I have listed 5 Arbiters i will accept, Iscariot seems to be unwilling to accept anyone except Karek who has taken his side, what does that say? I'm all about getting this over fast, that's why i'm willing to accept any one of these many un-biased arbiters... Its interesting that he will only accept someone that he already knows will pick him...--Happykook 22:51, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

After reading past cases and looking at precedent, I formally decline Cheeseman, Axe Hack, Zombie Slayer, SeventyThree, and Thekooks as arbitrator. I refer the person who brought this case to WOOT's post. Also, since my opponent is attempting to paint Karek in a bad light, I forward this, where Karek fairly tells me to stop fucking about. -- Iscariot 23:14, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Alright then, decline the person who is studying law. Everyone does. --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ ^{#nerftemplatedsigs} 23:55, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

If you want,even though I'm not on the list, I can arby this.--Dragon fang 01:54, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't even know what this is about but if my offer to arbitrate is just going to cause more arguing I hereby withdraw my offer to arbitrate.--Karek^maps?! 03:52, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

I offer to arbitrate, as I really don't know Happykook or Iscariot that well and have really no opinion either way.--Airborne88^T|Z.Quiz|PSS 08:18, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

I will accept anyeone except Karek, The fact that Iscariot will only accept Karek and is being a total child about this only proves my point about his constant harrassment. I am trying to get this resolved, but as usual, he's doing everything he can to drag this out and be a total a-hole about it. This in itself almost proves my case.--Happykook 15:52, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Karek withdrawn his offer, as you can see a few posts up. Therefore, Iscariot needs to pick a different arbitrator. --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ ^{#nerftemplatedsigs} 16:01, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

I offer to arbitrate. --People's Commissar Hagnat ^{[cloned] [mod]} 16:16, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

I am still here if you wish for an Arbritrator.--Thekooks 16:35, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

No you're not. Iscariot declined you. See that post of his a few up? --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ ^{#nerftemplatedsigs} 16:39, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

"If no arbitrator is agreed upon, one will be chosen by the administration team." cough cough hint hint ;) --/~Rakuen~\^Talk I Still Love Grim 18:26, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

That is not true. Were did you get that quote from? If no arbritrator is agreed upon then it will be archived after a period of time just like that case with Grim was.--Thekooks 20:02, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

yes it is true, it's from the UDWiki:Administration/Arbitration Guidelines. i think it was made because of that grim case...in anycase, i also offer to Arbritrate.--'BP^Tmz 20:07, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't think so. Those are just guidelines written by Hagnet, they haven't been voted on and so I feel they should be void.--Thekooks 20:11, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

but they make sense. allowing it so anyone can just not choose an arbitor so they can get out of this...it's a huge loophole.--'BP^Tmz 20:18, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Pretty bad precedent and all that, why doesn't someone put it up for a policy vote, I'm sure it will storm through.--Thekooks 20:32, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Exactly what Thekooks said, the quoted line is a guideline, NOT policy. Precedent states that a user may be represented by others if they do not choose to participate in the arbitration, and further states that a user does not have to accept any arbitrator if they do agree to the arbitration. Perhaps WOOT would care to know what the fuck he is talking about before he involves himself in a case again. As a side point, precedent also shows that guidelines passed do not retroactively affect cases in progress. I hereby decline BP due to the stupidity involved with confusing guidelines with policy. -- Iscariot 22:13, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Rather than arguing beforehand, would it not be best to pick an arbitrator so we can get this underway? -- Cheese 22:16, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Although I find his degree interesting, I have to reject Hagnat as arbitrator. I also reject Airbourne88. I believe this completes the list of users offering their services. The last time I nominated a user that had not offered their services, that user was called biased without basis, accordingly I will not select anyone who has not offered their services to this case. -- Iscariot 00:18, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm gonna have to agree with Happykook on this, get over yourself and just pick an arbitrator! For fucks sake they are all the same, what do you think one's gonna be more biased than the other? everyone here is pretty fair from what I know, and I've been here a while. Please Isca, just go with someone and stop acting like a spoiled brat. How about Cheese? He's smart and non-biased....--/~Rakuen~\^Talk I Still Love Grim 00:45, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

You could pick me too. I had RL experience in my Mock Trial classes. --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ ^{#nerftemplatedsigs} 00:48, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Offers service. --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 00:23, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

3 days...and they already went through 20% of the list... --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ ^{#nerftemplatedsigs} 00:25, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

"I will not select anyone who has not offered their services to this case." This is a double negative. What you meant to say was, "I will not select anyone who has offered their services to this case." And that is a rather flawed line of logic, how can you pick an arbitrator if they are not available or willing to arbitrate? I don't know you, but we are all just trying to help--Airborne88^T|Z.Quiz|PSS 02:22, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Not a double negative, having two negatives within a sentence does not automatically make that sentence a double negative. If you'd actually read it you understand the meaning of that sentence is "I will not accept anyone unless they volunteer first". You following yet? Or do you need diagrams? Thank you for reinforcing the reason why I rejected you. -- Iscariot 09:02, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

My offer is still on the table, as I see no rejection yet. Only agreeing to one person to arby does raise the idea of a biased judge. Not saying your pick is Iscar, just how it feels.--Dragon fang 05:13, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Karek was selected as he has had no contact with this dispute and I am familiar with Karek's objectivity on this wiki. However at the recommendation of Karek, and through reading previous cases and precedent, I will reverse my previous decision and accept SeventyThree provided my original request for specific charges, that can be settled by arbitration, be brought by my opponent. I made this request 13 minutes after the case was created....I'm still waiting. -- Iscariot 09:02, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

"Thank you for reinforcing the reason why I rejected you.." Whatever man, have fun. Sorry for trying to help.--Airborne88^T|Z.Quiz|PSS 09:11, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm o.k with conducting this, and rest assured I will only be considering charges related to the wiki, other charges relating to ingame activity may be bought up, but as this is arbitration process regarding wiki editing, they are unlikely to be considered, as I beleive has been stated by several people above. Arbitration is a place where wiki editing conflicts and issues are sorted out, we have no (and, personaly I would not want any) juristiction over what goes on ingame. Not even beurocrats, or sysops have that, in fact the only person who does is the creator of the game(well, and probably a few people he got to help him out making it, but you get the idea...)--Seventythree^Talk 10:11, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

I have no idea what the hell is going on, or who the hell either of you are, but I'm bored, and I've got some free time ahead of me, so I offer my services.-- dǝǝɥs oʇ ɯɐds: sʎɐʍ1ɐ! 15:19, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Right, HappyKook should now provide an opening statement, outlining his greivences, providng links to pages and edits that back up his statement. Then Iscarot takes it from there, you both get a chance to make a rebuttal, and then I rule. I'd like to remind you both to try and be civil to each other on this page, and the wiki, especialy as the case is in progress, also advoiding each other on the wiki, (as much as possible anyway) while this is in progess would be a good idea. I'd also like to repeat that I am unlikely to consider any evidence given from ingame, due to the fact that I have no juristiction over ingame stuff, only how you act on the wiki. If you need to contact me, feel free to use my talkpage. If anyone else has anything important to add to the case, please, use the talkpage.--Seventythree^Talk 09:56, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Happykook's Opening Statement

You know what, just getting this to arbitration has more than proven my point about what a childish a-hole Iscariot is, and how much he will drag this one, insulting as many people as he can, in the process.

This started because a friend of mine (DoctorRevive) added a mall tunes section to Giddings Mall back in Jun of 07. it listed a link to a free song by Jonathan Coulton called Re: Your Brains. A funny song about zombie trying to convince survivors to let them in. Doc's a friend of mine so when i saw other people jacking around with his contribution, which was both funny, and appropriate, i stepped in to keep it as it was. Iscariot rolls in and starts a deleting war claiming its adverting (a free song, how is that adverting) then claiming that the mere mention of it is NPOV. He begins to undo and delete everything i post.

Then when Cheese stepped in, he decides that he then needs to take his alt (Cliff Spab) and begin PKing my character in game, also listing my group "The Friends of Happykook!!!" as his group as he continues to PK.

I was willing to let the whole thing go, my buddy Doc told me that it just wasn't worth it, and it was his idea, and if he wasn't fighting it, i shouldn't either... so i was going to let it go without arbitration...

THEN i added mention of the update as a factor in the Giddings Mall Seige so Iscariot takes it as another opportunity to begin a new undo war with me, claiming that the update had nothing to do with it. But still mentioning that the Beachhead Tactic was part of the victory. Well, the Beachhead tactic WAS the update, so i hope you can see how ironic it is that its ok to mention the tactic, but not the update, when they are the same thing...

So i finally felt that arbitration was needed to put a stop to his childish behavior, so i filed a claim, and as you all see, he's just used this to create a new war (the war of who's going to arbitrate), and dragged this on much longer than it should have gone.

At this point, I'm just tired, and to be honest i'm done. I've decided that this moron is not worth the effort, and that he's just one of many morons in this game who has made it no fun to play anymore. Life is to short to waste it over some dork who sits at home and masturbates to himself in a mirror over how awsome he is on the wiki, and how cool it is to harrass others.

I want to apologize to Cheese, and all the rest of your arbiters who have tried your dearest to assist, but i think you'd all agree its just best to drop it and not waste any more of your time, i'm done here, so he's not going to waste any more of mine.

Thanks for all your help anyway. Please just close this out.--Happykook 22:56, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Iscariot's Opening Statement

I am aware my opponent has asked for this case to be dismissed, but given the libellous comments that I consider are contained within its response, I request a 24 hour period to make a rebuttal from my arbitrator to protect my public profile in the wiki. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 00:11, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Happykook's Rebuttal

Protect your public profile? You have to be kidding! You have done 10 times more damage to yourself and your "image" throughout this process than i could ever have done to you. If you haven't figured this out yet fucktard, i'm dropping the case, its obvious now that the only way you are going to "protect your profile" is to shut up, before you cause yourself anymore damage. Right now, YOU, are your worst enemy.

Sev, i appreciate the offer of 24 hours to reconsider, but my mind is made up. Its been fun playing urban dead, but i'd rather quit now while i still like the game and walk away with good fun memories, than have my time hear tainted by some loser who lives by proxy as a bully on a wiki, and thinks that it makes him cool, and popular...

Once again, thanks, and please close this out.

--Happykook 03:05, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Iscariot's Rebuttal

I'll be posting the response I requested here since Happykook felt the need to respond to my request for a response.

At this juncture the case is resolved and my opponent has said he has left the wiki. I can't say I'm heartbroken over this or think it weakens the wiki community in anyway, but I'll avoid commenting on that as to maintain civility to this process.

I have asked for this response to answer some of the points I feel were made erroneously. Unlike my opponent I will be providing evidence and my responses in a point by point breakdown. I shall start from the top of this case and work to the logical conclusion.

Happykook said:

who has continued to Undo everything i Wiki

This is patently untrue. Evidence here and here. Not once did I ever edit any of Happykook's personal pages. Nor did I ever edit Warehouse_84,40, the location claimed by Happykook and his group. The charge that I reverted ever edit is clearly false, I was reverting edits I considered POV on major community pages such as Giddings Mall.

Happykook said:

harrass me in game with constant PKing

There would have been no need for Happykook to produce any evidence of this. I freely admit to killing him three times after my zombie alt received a combat revive. This was the limit of my actions, and I did not report the member of Happykook's group that killed me in retaliation to any PK list. Before I embarked on this course I consulted members of the wiki via IRC who agreed with my interpretation of the convention - "It is unacceptable to bring game drama onto the wiki, but their is no policy or general consensus regarding taking wiki drama to the game".

Happykook said:

I will not accept Karek as he is biased to Iscariot's side.

I believe it's well known that Karek is one of the most impartial people on this wiki, hence my request to arbitrate. Even a demonstration that Karek could be unbiased and follow the precedents of wiki policy with me wasn't enough for Happykook.

Happykook said:

Iscariot is the one stalling this.

Less than six hours after the case has started and I'm stalling? Real life anyone?

Happykook said:

he's doing everything he can to drag this out and be a total a-hole about it.

Precedent was set here by a well known member of staff on this wiki. The fact that the 'loophole' was not closed after this case validated the process of rejecting every arbitrator until the case is dismissed. As I did not know who else could be trusted to ignore Happykook's emotive, rabid posting and rule fairly, I adopted this tactic. I relented after my only choice as arbitrator recommended some candidates to me. Subverting the process in the manner may not be considered 'fair' but until the policy is altered, it is a valid response when brought to administration.

Happykook said:

insulting as many people as he can, in the process.

I am aware of only one person I insulted during this case, Airborne88. Surely if I was insulting everyone I could I'd have more names in there? This is evident from reading the page up to this point.

Happykook said:

This started because a friend of mine (DoctorRevive) added a mall tunes section to Giddings Mall back in Jun of 07.

The history indeed shows DoctorRevive adding a mall tunes section. However here Happykook claims credit for himself. Lying? Surely not I hear you cry! It seems more than a coincidence to me that this slip occurred. DoctorRevive was added to the Happykook category by Happykook himself. Also the activity dates seem conspicuously exclusive. DoctorRevive was active from 2nd February 2007 to 11th February 2008, four days later Happykook appears and posts from 15th February to 25th March 2008 when his declares he is leaving the game and wiki. For the entire time that Happykook was posting, DoctorRevive made no edits. Less than 24 hours after Happykook 'leaves' DoctorRevive makes an edit. Coincidence? There are no rules against having multiple accounts, but the implication in his leaving seemed to be that he wasn't going to return the same day with an alternate account.

Happykook said:

when i saw other people jacking around with his contribution, which was both funny, and appropriate, i stepped in to keep it as it was

Whilst typing this I can see the warning below the typing box that reads "Please note that all contributions to The Urban Dead Wiki may be edited, altered, or removed by other contributors. If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly, then don't submit it here". Happykook freely admits to ignoring the basic principle of wiki editing. Happykook continued this policy, even while other survivors tried to resolve the situation diplomatically. He became quite forceful with other users, trying to bully them into not editing this section. It was at this point he came to my notice and earned my ire through his conduct.

Happykook said:

Iscariot rolls in and starts a deleting war claiming its adverting

The history clearly shows Karek removing the section citing advertising. Admittedly I did use this reason in the subsequent edit war, but Happykook seems to try and imply that I am the root of all his evils. Demonstrably false.

Happykook said:

Then when Cheese stepped in, he decides that he then needs to take his alt (Cliff Spab) and begin PKing my character in game, also listing my group "The Friends of Happykook!!!" as his group as he continues to PK.

Actually I'd decided to shoot him when he started bullying Boris, not after Cheeseman stepped in. Everything else in that sentence is a whine about in-game events. Game drama does not belong on the wiki, Happykook failed to grasp this despite being told multiple times.

Happykook said:

THEN i added mention of the update as a factor in the Giddings Mall Seige so Iscariot takes it as another opportunity to begin a new undo war with me, claiming that the update had nothing to do with it.

Happykook refers to this edit. I took exception to this edit as it implies that the Bash did nothing and only won due to a fluke of mechanics change. I found this quite simply offensive to players on both sides of the siege. In the subsequent edit war I explained my reasons in the edit summary. Happykook disagreed, and even though he was adamant that it was fact, couldn't produce any evidence. Other users attempted to explain but were ignored by Happykook.

Happykook said:

So i finally felt that arbitration was needed to put a stop to his childish behavior, so i filed a claim, and as you all see, he's just used this to create a new war

As soon as this became an arbitration case I ceased all editing of pages where opinion was in conflict, as is required. Happykook misquoted this policy and added an edit he chose after the arbitration started. According to policy, as it was Happykook's edit that caused the conflict, his edit should have been removed, not the section that caused him to edit in the first place. If the arbitration had ruled in my favour, the restoration of this page would have been part of what I would have asked for.

Happykook said:

If you haven't figured this out yet fucktard, i'm dropping the case, its obvious now that the only way you are going to "protect your profile" is to shut up, before you cause yourself anymore damage. Right now, YOU, are your worst enemy.

Not once did I swear at any participant on this arbitration case. I maintained civility out of respect to the process and the people who were volunteering their time to assist the community. Odd how my opponent could not do the same.

I've typed too long, but believe I've addressed all the points that I held in dispute. I may have a reputation for not being the most diplomatic user on places like the suggestions page, but that is mainly based on fact and can be proven. Happykook's accusations could not be proven. I'd like to thank Seventythree for organising this opportunity for me to respond. This case will now be closed and protected. Any further comments/questions etc. can be brought to my talk page.

-- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 21:27, 26 March 2008 (UTC)