Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-06-21 Death Valley Driver Video Review

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Mediation Case: 2006-06-21 Death Valley Driver Video Review 1.1 Request Information 1.2 Mediator response 1.3 Compromise offers 2 Discussion 3 Happy Funtime Mediation of Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-06-21 Death Valley Driver Video Review

[edit] Mediation Case: 2006-06-21 Death Valley Driver Video Review

[edit] Request Information

Request made by: SirFozzie 07:02, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Where is the issue taking place?

The article Death Valley Driver Video Review ...

Who's involved?

Myself and another user, JB196...

What's going on?

User in question was suspended several times from board for promoting his series of articles/upcoming book, Bleeding_Was_Only_Half_the_Job, and in retribution, has done a hack job on the article (yes, I wrote it), nominating it for deletion several times, etcetera. I attempted to work toward a neutral POV with him, but then he decided it wasn't enough and started trying to get it deleted/changed ...

"in retribution"

This is just one example of many of SirFozzie violating WP:AGF and other policies. He has tried to save the article by doing a play-by-play thread of the articles status (located at http://board.deathvalleydriver.com/index.php?showtopic=8750 ) which as I see it is a way to call for users of the message board to help support its inclusion on Wikipedia. There are direct examples of him basically saying "the article is up for deletion, come make your voice known that it should be kept" on at least two occasions throughout the thread. At one point, he even accused me of calling another Wikipedia user a Nazi which I never did nor would I ever do, and to be honest I took great offense to that. I have made MANY fully constructive, fully documented, and fully explained edits to the article over the past few weeks; that I do not deny. Thanks for your time.JB196 21:53, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

What would you like to change about that?

Get the thing fixed. If it means deleting it, fine. If it means leaving it fine. I do not want to get into an edit/revert war with him, but this is in my eyes, extremely bad faith ..

Would you prefer we work discreetly? If so, how can we reach you?

Prefer it in the open. You can reach me via my talk page or at my email (SirFozzie@gmail.com) ...

SirFozzie 07:07, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mediator response

Mediation occured on my talk page, and everyone was splendidly cooperative. I'm currently awaiting permission to close the case. --The Prophet Wizard of the Crayon Cake 20:25, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Aaaaand... closed. ^_^ --The Prophet Wizard of the Crayon Cake 19:25, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Compromise offers

[edit] Discussion

I know from experience that Wikipedia should not be used to advertise your own work (e.g. book, website, etc.). If your work becomes a larger known work then someone may create an article for it, but self-promotion has no place on Wikipedia. Also, from personal experience, if you are so emotionally tied to an article, I think you should both step back. Emotion shouldn't be motivation for edits. If you don't want your work to be edited and ripped apart, you need not edit on Wiki, period. With that said, any self-promotion should be deleted. BrianZ^(talk) 16:39, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Happy Funtime Mediation of Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-06-21 Death Valley Driver Video Review

Before we begin, I'd like everyone to read this. (My own custom super-list)

'Please read and deeply contemplate the meaning of the following fundamental philosophies of being nice':

• Avoid making nasty personal attacks (Mean statements directed at a user's character), we need to talk about Wikipedia not each other.
• Be nice to each other, that's the only way anything gets done. If both parties are mean and unsympathizing, then no one will get what they want.
• Assume good faith in other editor's intentions. Wikipedia allows anyone to edit, so obviously we trust that everyone has good intentions when it comes to using it. If everyone were out to harm Wikipedia... well... we'd just be screwed.
• Basically... play nice  :)
  
  

If everyone is in agreement with the above philosophies, then let's have a nice lovely sit down with a delicious bagel and discuss what's going on. Shall we? -- The Prophet Wizard of the Crayon Cake ^{(Prophesize|Witchcraft)} 17:48, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

OK, sounds good, thanks for the heads up.JB196 17:52, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Works for me too. SirFozzie 18:44, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Ok, since I'm a neutral party, I think it would be best if you two begin the discussion, and I simply "guide" once I overview the situation. So, discuss your dislikes and likes, and so forth and I will chime in eventually. yaaay -- The Prophet Wizard of the Crayon Cake ^{(Prophesize|Witchcraft)} 19:02, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Ok, first, JB.. I am legitimately not trying to hassle you man. I think you're going overboard on the # of tags. We managed to come to a fairly decent article before this all started. I'm going to do my best to assume good faith, and let me make some suggestions to see what you think.

A) Linkless Tag - Since the main/major reason for the DVDVR article now is the DVDVR500 (and the controversey it created). Would you support if folks started tagging wrestlers like Chris Benoit with their DVDVR500 rankings? (I use him as an example because he was #1 on three straight lists).

B) Cliche/Jargon - I do not understand why that needs to be there. Please explain, we may need to agree to disagree.

C) Notability - This is the one we're going to go round and round on, and I don't think we're going to come to a conclusion. I do know that in 03 and 04, when they were putting together flyers for the 03 and 04 ECWA Super 8, they were using the placements in the DVDVR500 as a selling point on the fliers. Just like the PWI500, it's fairly notable, and the site does have a large amount of Googlehits. Otherwise, I think we're back in the discussion from the AfD again.

D) Relevance- Not sure why it's on there. Feel free to explain.

The article itself? I largely agree with your edits (the article was VERY unwieldy), and perhaps it's at the right size now.

Hopefully this is a good first step. Please assume good faith of me, and vice versa. Thanks. SirFozzie 22:59, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Oh.. also (besides adding this to my watchlist) if you want, my email is (SirFozzie@gmail.com) or just use my talk page. SirFozzie 23:11, 26 June 2006 (UTC) ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Likes:

• Long walks on the beach
• peaches
• photography (Kodak moments are a beautiful thing)
• bubble baths
• milkshakes

Dislikes:

• the ring tone on my alarm clock
• my shitty TV reception
• Randy Savage's rap album
• that radio show called "Delilah"...God the intro music to that makes me want to put my head into a meat cleaver
• any pizza brand besides Sbarro's and Pizza Hut

Ohhh, oops, you mean likes and dislikes as it pertains to the subject at hand...Dawp!!!

• "Would you support if folks started tagging wrestlers like Chris Benoit with their DVDVR500 rankings?" - No idea what you mean here.

• "I do not understand why that needs to be there. Please explain, we may need to agree to disagree." (in reference to cliche/jargon) - the previous version which you made had references to

""Head On Stakes Thread," ""Team Beefy vs. Glitterati," "X Song of the Day," ""Throw The World Away," and TENS of others of inside jokes/cliches/jargon that only DVDVR posters would understand. Every message board has its own inside jokes; it doesn't mean the jokes are notable.

• "Relevance" - because in the version you wrote, there are so many cliches/jargon as described above which don't serve any purpose to the article. i.e. does one really need to know that "The Land Of Confusion has recently been the main wormhole to the Gamma Quadrant that is a group project called "Throw The World Away"?" etc etc

The reason I added those tags is because you reverted my three weeks of edits (I think it was two actually, hehe). So while some of the content which is referred to above was not included in the version I made (the current one), we were going back and forth between reverts so in my opinion they still applied.

"they were using the placements in the DVDVR500 as a selling point on the fliers." - then why not just make an entry on the 500 system; does the whole site need an entry?

"We managed to come to a fairly decent article before this all started." vs. "I largely agree with your edits (the article was VERY unwieldy), and perhaps it's at the right size now."

These sentences seem to contradict each other to a degree; please clarify.

"I largely agree with your edits (the article was VERY unwieldy), and perhaps it's at the right size now."

With all due respect, then I am unclear why you reverted it to the original version.

To clarify, the thing I am not so cool with is when you were reverting the version I came to after I justified each and every edit, one by one, and you were not giving any reasoning for the revert besides it was some kind of three-week campain or something.JB196 00:39, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Just utter frustration, more than anything (you were thtrowing a lot of tags up there, man ;)). What I meant by my sentence above is add to the Accomplishments tab of wrestlers by adding where they placed in the DVDVR 500 with links to either the DVDVR article or a seperate DVDVR500 article.

For example, see this section on Chris Benoit. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Chris_Benoit&action=edit&section=17

would it be helpful if we added his DVDVR500 rankings under Accomplishments (see where the PWI stuff is at the bottom? that's where I'd add it)

---

Oh, I see what you mean now...No, I don't; with the exception listed below (see end of this paragraph) and with all due respect due to the web site, I think it would be absurd to also list it in their accomplishments. It's already been debated the notability of the web site; to list the web site's rating of the wrestlers would be nothing short of ABSURD. I could see it MAYBE for someone like Benoit for being on the three lists, but anyone other than them would really be pushing it.

As far as links go, I am thinking more like the PWI 500 in a See Also section.

Another quick comment on the Super 8 flyers - do you have any scans or copies of them? I am not clear how they could plug the DVDVR 500 when the only wrestlers who passed #50 on it were American Dragon and Low Ki, and looking at the lists their ratings seemed to go up AFTER the tournament...JB196 07:25, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

EDIT: The Linkless tag is not that big of a deal to me, I will go ahead and remove it so that will take one issue off our plate. There are no non-talk pages that link to it, but its more the Relevence, jargon, and WP:WEB which are issues to me.JB196 07:29, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

---

A) Ok. If we agree to leave the article at the pared down size/ability, with none of the "in-jokes" that you mentioned in the previous versions, would the Relevance/Jargon tags be able to be removed?

B) The scan of the flyers was on the board, unfortunately when the hackers took it ovr, it was lost :/ But I will try to see if someone still has a copy of it.

C) And we run into the notability issue again. It may just have to be left on there, Notability is going to be our big bugaboo disagreement I think SirFozzie 17:16, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

---

If we left it like it is I would agree to have the cliche/jargon tag removed. The relevence tag is a little more iffy as it specifically says "The relevance of particular information in (or previously in) this article or section is disputed. The information may have been removed or included by an editor as a result." We both seem to agree that there WAS an issue with the info that was "previously in" the article. So that has to be taken into account as far as the "Relevence" tag.

Another issue I want to bring up is the list of writers. Is that whole section needed? There are other writers who aren't listed in it -- what determines whether somebody should or shouldn't be listed? JB196 22:18, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

---

The only ones who aren't listed are the ones who requested to be removed from the list. SirFozzie 04:58, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

---

Well there are a bunch of posts in the Wikipedia thread on DVDVR that indicate that there are several writers not listed.JB196 13:53, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

---

And if you read the full thread (that's now dead, over a month without a post. The folks who requested not to be listed pulled their name from the llist. that's their right, I wasn't gonna argue with them :) SirFozzie 17:45, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

---

It doesn't really matter that its now "dead"; you updated it during my first afD asking people to go make posts in the afD discussion.JB196 17:55, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

---

I apologize for my delay in replying, I've been dealing with other matters and have just now been able to read through everything. I must say you two are getting along much better than cases I've had in the past, and I thank you both for remaining civil. Have we decided on anything so far? -- The Prophet Wizard of the Crayon Cake ^{(Prophesize|Witchcraft)} 18:34, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, we'd like the roast duck with mango salsa.. oh! You mean about the DVDentry? well, we're looking to compromise on the tags. I don't think any of them are valid anymore, he believes they are.. and a couple other folks who disagree with JB are removing them on the article (I avoided commenting on it, because since we're already here, I'd really prefer to avoid getting dragged into an edit war. The article itself? Fine. It's lean and mean, compared to a more exhaustive entry that might have too much in it. The tags? ugh.

Blargleflarz, forgot to sign my last one. SirFozzie 21:18, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

hmmm, if there's conflicts going on at the article, it might be best to mention this discussion on the article's talk page. -- The Prophet Wizard of the Crayon Cake 21:22, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Done. We aim to please. Usually. Sometimes. SirFozzie 23:54, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

---

Hehe, yes indeed we do.JB196 00:11, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Well I am one of the people who are trying to remove the tag. I would like to keep one tag which is the one about notabality because that is what this is really all about. Its concise, it gets to the point and promotes a discussion on the subject. With multiple tags it seems like an edit warzone that is more likely to get the reaction of "the hell with it" and not be taken on its merits or faults. That being said in my opinion the article itself has "grown up" quite a bit and a lot more concise and encylopediac. I would suggest as a matter of muster... we present this case to the Pro Wrestling Wiki Project and try and get a consensus from them. If this has been done it hasnt been done recently. It could be added to our list of things to go over. NegroSuave 07:09, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Sounds like a plan. -- The Prophet Wizard of the Crayon Cake 16:55, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

works for me. SirFozzie 01:55, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Wow, Im impressed. You folks are getting along absolutely fantastic... want me to call it case closed and go ahead and let everyone involved work it out without my guidance? I haven't really been doing much anyways, and you've pretty mucn mediated yourself. --The Prophet Wizard of the Crayon Cake 08:22, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Can we keep this open till NegroSuave gets the WikiProject:Pro Wrestling on it and we're all set? No prob either way.

THe decision is totally up you :). We can keep the case open as long as we want. --The Prophet Wizard of the Crayon Cake 18:38, 3 July 2006 (UTC)