Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Dai Grepher

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Consensus - not applicable? 2 unblock 3 E-mail from Dai Grepher 3.1 The email

[edit] Consensus - not applicable?

A snowcone's chance in Hell of them agreeing that this is the only article consensus cannot be applicable to. Let's just assume that the one single person who called it a prequel is wrong compared to the fifteen-some people who call it a remake (not including Sakamoto, which you refuse you give a reason what Sakamoto was referring to with the remake statement). - A Link to the Past (talk) 01:00, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

Dai Grepher: I told you that Sakamoto referred to remakes and the negative results of doing them to answer the question of what challenges he and his team had to overcome when creating Zero Mission to be fresh and new while still holding true to the gameplay of the original. Sakamoto spoke of remaking Metroid gameplay, not remaking Metroid. He also said that it was not a remake of story, which proves my argument correct. All you people can bring up to refute that are baseless definitions of the word "necessarily". The consensus does not exist to determine which side wins. It also does not include votes from others in other forums that agree that the game is a prequel. This is beside the point. Andrevan has disregarded the peaceful dispute resolution methods agreed upon by PouiytMan and I, and has misused his abilities to edit the page to be bias in favor of his own view. The reason is because a fair and open-minded look at the evidence will go in my favor since your side of the argument has no evidence. Dai Grepher 01:38, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Metroid: Zero Mission is not a remake for the sole reason that the gameplay is not that much different from Fusion.

And it ceased to be peaceful when you vandalized The Missing Link's user page. That is an example of pure vandalism, and why should we assume good faith after that? Any and all credibility you had was shattered when you violated one of the most important vandalism rules; DON'T TOUCH USER PAGES WITHOUT AUTHORIZATION. You accuse us of being vandals for following consensus, and you refuse to believe that your theory is more than such. You should have been blocked for the user page alone. All you do is edit talk pages, user pages and Metroid pages, all of which are done so because of this dispute. - A Link to the Past (talk) 03:06, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

Dai Grepher: What are you saying with that first line? That Zero Mission is not a remake? Also, I did not vandalize The Missing Link's user page. First, I started it for him. Then I posted a fact that was apparent at the time. I did not know that editing other pages was against the rules. Other people edited my user page and posted insults on mine. So I edited The Missing Link's user page to be accurate with the type of actions he has back then. When I was informed that I should not edit others pages at all, I chose to never edit anyone's page again. It was a Good Faith edit, and the fact that I have not done anything like that since is proof of that.

Dai Grepher: The consensus is being used to bully the facts right off of Wikipedia because those that voted cannot accept the truth. It is personal bias that made this RfC, it is personal bias that is holding up the resolution process, and it is personal bias that is trying to decide what is posted on Wikipedia as fact. What you people are doing is not right. You are trying to preserve your theory about a game by abusing the system and administration privileges. All this because you have been proved wrong about a game.

Dai Grepher 19:39, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

The whole issue recently involves the inevitable conflict between NPOV and consensus. I have to admit that it is true that NPOV is a great concept and is a goal to be achieved at Wikipedia, the whole notion that Dai Grepher puts forth that NPOV and consensus are incompatible and mutually exclusive entities is something that I find very difficult to swallow. Through Dai's arguments, he presents the case as if having the article choose one side of the debate or another is immediately a violation of NPOV as it makes the entire article biased and predisposed to one school of thought. Yet when researching NPOV, the Wikipedia founder suggests that this is not the intent he wishes to convey.

Jimbo Wales suggests in the original formulation of NPOV that a neutral point of view is not the same as being mum about different theories in the universe over a given topic. Instead, a proper NPOV would explain the differing theories over an issue, meaning in this specific case that at least the remake side of the debate needs to be presented.

At the same time, this inevitably has to be tempered to make sure that no argument is given undue weight. Jimbo himself mentions that a theory held by an extreme superminority does not deserve to have their theory presented at all, yet despite the fact that some debate exists, this still constitutes as NPOV.

The inevitable question that remains to be seen is how significant a superminority must this be for a failure to mention the superminority to be NPOV? If we even say that Dai voted within the consensus poll, we'd have a 15:1 against. How much is needed? 30:1? 60:1? 100:1? 1,000:1? Though Wikipedia is known the world throughout, it took quite some time to get the number of people who looked at this topic to look at it, and each in turn gave their opinion of the facts in an unbiased manner (assuming good faith, as we should do). 1,000:1 is impossible therefore to come by. Eventually at some point, you're going to have to look into the Law of Large Numbers and say that in the whole community, one theory has much more belief than does the other. Once that point is determined, the article should be written in that form, and that still satisfies NPOV. The Missing Link 12:37, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Dai Grepher: I know what the NPOV is, and I would be accepting of an article that presents both beliefs if the remake belief were actually valid. Though I would disagree with it, that is Wikipedia policy, and if the topic must state, "Many believe that this game is a remake, while some others believe it is a prequel, though no official statement has been made to prove either one" or something similar, then it should be so. However, I think that mediation and arbitration will resolve the issue by siding with the belief that has the facts to support it and will decide what belief is true. That is why the remake side is trying to avoid those resolution processes like the plague. Dai Grepher 19:39, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Dai Grepher: One more thing I forgot to mention. Some of the people that voted in that poll are from other forums where I have proved a prequel to be the accurate timeline despite their best efforts. Those members came here, not to vote for a remake as a strong timeline with facts to support it, but to vote against me. They cast their votes out of personal bias against me, not because the remake theory seems more logical or factual. Dai Grepher 19:43, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

One of the people, to be exact. ChunkyKong, but I noticed you failed to mention that one supporter of yours, who, at the time of his vote, had only two edits. All other voters were either involved in the discussion, or have many edits. Are you claiming that it's no problem that you vandalized a user page (which is actually unarguable - it was a personal attack AND an edit on someone else's user page). - A Link to the Past (talk) 00:41, August 24, 2005 (UTC)

Just for the record, so we don't have one of these "nuh-uh" things going on, technically I came from the forum as well. However, I also joined Wikipedia for other reasons than just this debate. I've long since respected Wikipedia, and I decided that I would add my knowledge and editing ability to a laundry list of articles, most notably in the Legend of Zelda series. However in light of this, I've actively taken part in the debate and have contributed a lot of ideas to the debate, so that I believe should entitle me to my opinion on this matter. The Missing Link 00:56, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Dai Grepher: What supporter? I had no supporter in the debate. ChunkyKong and The Missing Link from VGF, and Dr.P from the Nintendo boards are some of the people that crossed over just to disagree with me. I am claiming that I meant no ill will by editing the user page, what I put on there was not an insult, and I certainly did not know that no one but the user could edit the page. If that is the case then every user page should be restricted to everyone but that user. Someone else brought up a good point about this recent attack on my character in another forum. This is all being done lead away from the debate. So I am going to concentrate on the Zero Mission article and getting this issue resolved. Dai Grepher 02:18, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

User:BeamYosho. Your only supporter happens to has not made any other edits, with the exception of the User page. Screams sockpuppet or coerced voting to me. It certainly wasn't a new person either. - A Link to the Past (talk) 02:56, August 24, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] unblock

Dai Grepher emailed me, so I unblocked his account - after also undoing Andrevan's self-block.

Let's try to use the talk pages, people. Uncle Ed 02:32, September 9, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] E-mail from Dai Grepher

Dai Grepher sent me this e-mail, and I'm posting it below with his permission. Uncle Ed 19:18, September 9, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The email

Redwolf24 has blocked me, claiming that I ignored the 3RR and was mean to other members. Both are untrue. I edited the Zero Mission page, and this was before I saw your e-mail requesting no more edits. I did not revert to an old version, I edited. Could you please protect the Zero Mission page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metroid:_Zero_Mission from being edited, and could you also protect the prequel version of the article, since that is the fact that has been proven? Or, as a compromise, could you protect it as an article that endorses neither timeline? I would also like to ask how I can go about getting this issue resolved. Must I take this to arbitration, because the others in the debate that are clearly ignoring the facts will not stop reverting the article back to its incorrect version no matter what proof is brought against them. Thank you for your patience and understanding in this issue.

-Dai Grepher

As shown on his talk page with diffs, he clearly violated 3RR. He has also vandalized a user page and is ignoring the consensus we came to on the talk page of the Zero Mission article. To protect the article would be to give in to this problematic user. Andre (talk) 19:22, September 9, 2005 (UTC)