Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Dai Grepher

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

In order to remain listed at Wikipedia:Requests for comment, at least two people need to show that they tried to resolve a dispute with this user and have failed. This must involve the same dispute with a single user, not different disputes or multiple users. The persons complaining must provide evidence of their efforts, and each of them must certify it by signing this page with ~~~~. If this does not happen within 48 hours of the creation of this dispute page (which was: {insert UTC timestamp with ~~~~~}), the page will be deleted. The current date and time is: 08:51, 6 April 2007 (UTC).

Contents

[edit] Statement of the dispute

This is a summary written by users who dispute this user's conduct. Users signing other sections ("Response" or "Outside views") should not edit the "Statement of the dispute" section.

Dai Grepher believes that Metroid: Zero Mission is a prequel to the original Metroid; everyone else believes it is a remake of the original Metroid. Dai Grepher continously reverts the page to be ambiguous about its status; it is reverted back to say an enhanced remake of the original Metroid game designed to "retell the story of Samus' original mission".

[edit] Description

{Add summary here, but you must use the section below to certify or endorse it. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries.}

Dai Grepher has brought up continuity errors between Zero Mission and Metroid as evidence that the two do not overlap on the timeline, while those disagreeing with him feel that these are merely mistakes and retcons, and bring up a great deal of evidence stating clearly that Zero Mission is a remake. Dai Grepher has dismissed this and feels that only the game's creator, Yoshio Sakamoto, can say either way.

A poll was held. Dai Grepher did not vote; the poll was unanimously in favor of Zero Mission being a remake that overlaps on the timeline. Consensus has been found, but Dai Grepher continues to revert to his version. He was blocked by Andrevan for 24 hours for doing so, and has been warned many times, but has continued to return and revert. He is pushing his minority "Flat Earth" POV.

Meanwhile, some editors are undertaking an endeavor to mail a letter to Sakamoto to clarify this once and for all. However, Dai Grepher refuses to abide by consensus until that occurs.

Additionally, he has accused everyone else of vandalism, and has vandalized several pages.

[edit] Evidence of disputed behavior

(provide diffs and links)

  1. Special:Contributions/Dai Grepher (pretty much all Zero Mission-related)
  2. Revert after consensus poll & being blocked for 24 hours
  3. Warning Andrevan of vandalism
  4. Warning The Missing Link of vandalism
  5. Vandalizing The Missing Link's user page
  6. User:Dai Grepher - "Brings the truth about the Metroid series to forums and information sites across the net. Main debate: Metroid Zero Mission is a prequel, not a remake." (Intent to push his POV)

[edit] Applicable policies

{list the policies that apply to the disputed conduct}

  1. Wikipedia:Consensus
  2. Wikipedia:NPOV
  3. Wikipedia is not a soapbox
  4. Wikipedia:Survey guidelines
  5. Wikipedia:Flat earth problem

[edit] Evidence of trying and failing to resolve the dispute

(provide diffs and links)

  1. Talk:Metroid: Zero Mission
  2. User talk:Dai Grepher (bottom sections)
  3. Andrevan's block log - 00:39, August 20, 2005 Andrevan blocked "User:Dai Grepher" with an expiry time of 24 hours (Ignoring consensus, vandalizing user pages. Blocked for 24 hours, as warned.)

[edit] Users certifying the basis for this dispute

(sign with ~~~~)

  1. Andre (talk) 22:35, August 22, 2005 (UTC)
  2. A Link to the Past (talk) 22:49, August 22, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Other users who endorse this summary

(sign with ~~~~)

  1. The Missing Link 23:29, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
  2. FlooK 01:40, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
  3. ChunkyKong 01:49, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
  4. Pagrashtak 04:34, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
  5. Poiuyt Man talk 07:59, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
  6. Amren (talk) 23:59, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
  7. demeteloaf (talk) 19:42, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Response

This is a summary written by the user whose conduct is disputed, or by other users who think that the dispute is unjustified and that the above summary is biased or incomplete. Users signing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Outside Views") should not edit the "Response" section.

Dai Grepher: The administrator Andrevan has misused his abilities to block me from editing any page but my own for 24 hours. The message I received when trying to edit was as follows:

"User is blocked From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. You have attempted to edit a page, either by clicking the "edit this page" tab or by following a red link.

Your user name or IP address has been blocked by Andrevan.

The reason given is this: Autoblocked because your IP address has been recently used by "Dai Grepher". The reason given for Dai Grepher's block is: "Ignoring consensus, vandalizing user pages. Blocked for 24 hours, as warned."."

On the talk page found here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Metroid:_Zero_Mission I have respectfully stated that a consensus on the issue is not applicable to the article, since I have provided a substantial amount of evidence that disproves the popular theory, and those that have voted have clearly ignored the facts that I have presented. Also, this consensus does not reach beyond the limits of Wikipedia to users holding a different belief and therefore does not represent the targeted fanbase. Under Wikipedia consensus policy, a consensus cannot be used to determine which side has "won" a dispute. It can only be used to see if there is a consensus, which there is not since I disagree with it and the opposition. Andrevan is using the consensus incorrectly as justification for changing the article to reflect his own opinion and also for blocking my account.

I have suggested that the article remain ambiguous, and not bias toward their side or my own while dispute resolution takes its course. The others debating the issue and myself have agreed to contact mediators and arbitrators to resolve the issue fairly. Andrevan makes it clear on the Zero Mission talk page listed above that he believes the popular theory and has stated orders to change the article to directly contradict me (Dai Grepher, found under the: "The article should not be ambiguous" section of the article), which shows a direct prejudice against my presentation and a complete disregard of the facts that I have presented that at the very least seriously question the popular theory.

I have edited the article to be non-partisan and I have also made additions to the page, which by Wikipedia policy is not classified as a revert. Andrevan is the one who has reverted and vandalized the page by ignoring the NPOV policy. Also, Andrevan has not posted warnings of blocking my account on my talk page, as Wikipedia's policy for handling vandalism states. I however have posted these required steps on his talk page and also The Missing Link's talk page because they continue to change the article to be biased.

The second reason for blocking me, an accusation that I have vandalized other user pages is untrue. Andrevan is misusing his powers to preserve his own personal belief, rather than protecting the page to be non-biased and allowing dispute resolution to take its course. By doing so, and blocking me, he is hindering the peaceful resolution of the dispute.

The allegations of me having a "Flat Earth" theory are unfounded and almost slanderous. Those that use the Flat Earth Problem and the consensus to justify their theory and their actions have misunderstood the purpose for both. The Flat Earth Problem states: "A flat earth problem is the incredulity that arises when someone questions the obvious objective truth and claims it's a valid alternative." The theory that Zero Mission is a remake of Metroid is not an obvious truth. Also, my objective claim has a substantial amount of evidence proving it to be a valid alternative. The others in the Zero Mission debate have disregarded this evidence and have made excuses for the facts that I have taken directly from the games, their textual sources, and the game's director. It was mentioned above that the others believe the inconsistencies that I have found to be "retcons" or "mistakes", however, at no point in the article does anyone provide evidence that even suggests that the inconsistencies are either one. "The stress that arises when the "objective" scientist fails to appreciate even the possibility that the other side might be sincere - or even right - is what I call the flat earth problem." I do not have this problem. The problem that I have is that the objective side continues to break Wikipedia policy and delay the resolution process. Meanwhile the article is changed to be bias and untrue based on the opinions of those that truly fit the description of those that cannot "appreciate even the possibility that the other side might be sincere - or even right".

It is my opinion that Anrevan be reprimanded for misusing his privileges and vandalizing the Zero Mission page.Dai Grepher 00:38, 23 August 2005 (UTC)


Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~):

BeamYosho 06:17, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Year old account, his only edits were made on this day - one edit on his user page, and one on this

[edit] Outside view

This is a summary written by users not directly involved with the dispute but who would like to add an outside view of the dispute. Users editing other sections ("Statement of the dispute" and "Response") should not edit the "Outside Views" section, except to endorse an outside view.

{Add summary here, but you must use the endorsement section below to sign. Users who edit or endorse this summary should not edit the other summaries.}

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~):

[edit] Outside view by McClenon

On the one hand, this is one of the two most truly trivial disputes that I have encountered since I have started reading user conduct RfCs. It is a quarrel about the fictitious timeline of a video game. It has none of the grandiosity of a conspiracy theory that the Catholic Church is trying to cover up the fact that it knowingly allowed the Holocaust, or whether Joseph Kennedy Sr. was the Antichrist. I have very little interest in whether there is consensus about a fictional timeline.

On the other hand, I do see evidence that a user page was vandalized. Vandalism is not trivial. I suggest that the Dai Grepher should admit that he made a serious mistake in vandalizing a user page, and apologize, and agree not to behave badly in the future.

Users who endorse this summary (sign with ~~~~):

  1. Robert McClenon 00:13, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
  2. Calton | Talk 01:32, August 25, 2005 (UTC). You should check out WP:LAME sometime.
  3. ⇝Casito⇝Talk 05:51, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion

All signed comments and talk not related to a vote or endorsement, should be directed to this page's discussion page. Discussion should not be added below. Discussion should be posted on the talk page. Threaded replies to another user's vote, endorsement, evidence, response, or comment should be posted to the talk page.

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../r/e/q/Wikipedia%7ERequests_for_comment_Dai_Grepher_8046.html"