Talk:Open gaming/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
← Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 →

Contents

Time to get serious

I've made a number of edits and additions to this article over the past several months. These include, but are not limited to:

  • Adding several paragraphs concerning Fudge and the Fudge Legal Notice [1]
  • Clarifying the distinction between the d20 license and the Open Game License, and correcting the article where it referred to one where it ought to refer to the other [2]
  • Made numerous grammatical improvements (adding missing commas, adding missing words, removing redundant words, etc.) [3] [4] [5]
  • Updated the Open Game License section to correct a few errors and remove unsubstantiated and highly POV editorializing [6]
  • Added external links for the Fudge Legal Notice and the Open Game License
  • Sorted the list of open licenses and the list of external links [7]

I think that's about it.

For reasons I will not speculate on, Axon keeps reverting these edits [8] [9] [10] [11], damaging the article in the process. I reported this behavior to Wikipedia, and was banned for my trouble, so I won't be doing that again any time soon.

However, after taking an extended break from Wikipedia, wherein I spent no more than a few minutes of my time once a month to add a paragraph here and there and revert any vandalism disputed edits, I am newly inspired to give it my full attention. Ironically, you can thank Axon for that: his constant false complaints to Wikipedia [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] [26] [27] [28] were making my semi-retirement from Wikipedia as much of a nuisance as my previous activity was. So then, why not be active? Ergo, for the foreseeable future, I'll be focusing on this and related articles, and trying to find ways to improve and expand it/them. I will be happy to discuss the content of the article with anyone who has an actual interest in improving it or adding objective, verifiable information. If Axon wants to mend his ways, stop vandalizing adding disputed edits without any discussion the article, and focus on improving it, I will even discuss it with him. Let bygones be bygones: grudges are a waste of time.

For example:

  • I do not know a great deal about open gaming licenses other than the Creative Commons licneses, the GNU Free Documentation License, and the Open Gaming License (all active), and the Fudge Legal Notice and the October Open Game License (both defunct). However, if this article summarizes those five, it ought to summarize others, as well (either defunct or active). It also ought to devote similar amounts of verbiage to the active licenses, and similar amounts of verbiage to the defunct licenses.
  • Speaking of which, how much detail is too much? the WotC Open Game License, for example, has it own Wikipedia article. Does this article repeat too much of that? Should some of this information be re-located to that article?
  • Backing up a step, the "History" section, particularly the first two paragraphs, is meandering, and needs to be re-written. If no one does this in a reasonable timeframe, I'll do it, but for such a sweeping change I would prefer to work in collaboration with someone else who wants this article to be factual and informative.
  • Backing up even further, this article currently makes a lot of vague, unsubstantiated claims and weasel words, such as:
    • "A number of primarily small game developers..."
    • "...most major RPG developers..."
    • "Critics often complained..."
    • "...the concept of the OGF, unlike the Free Software Foundation upon which it was undoubtedly based..."
    • "...the OGL was heavily criticised in some quarters..."
    • etc.

An encyclopedia article is not the place for vague, unsubstantiated claims and weasel words, nor is Wikipedia a soapbox for an editor's opinion. The article should be objective and verifiable. If citations can't be produced to support these assertions (making them detailed, verifiable claims rather than vague, unsubstantiated claims), they should be removed from the article.

"Not all information added to Wikipedia has to be from peer-reviewed journals; but strive to make sure that information is reliable and verifiable. For example, citing book, print, or reliable web resources demonstrates that the material is verifiable and is not the editor's opinion." (from Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not)

"Weasel words don't really give a neutral point of view; they just spread hearsay, or couch personal opinion in vague, indirect syntax. It's better to put a name and a face on an opinion than to assign an opinion to an anonymous source." (from Wikipedia:Avoid_weasel_terms)

Okay, that's a start. -- Bblackmoor 16:34, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

I'm glad to see you have finally decided to respond to discussion on the talk page after months of disruptive behaviour, and I'm much encouraged by this. However, I notice that, despite warnings from administrators, you continue to delete content from the article without prior discussion here and I have alerted an administrator of this.
I hope we can start a discussion without resorting to bad faith tactics such as incivility, personal attacks, incorrect accusations of vandalism, top posting comments (all new comments belong at the bottom of the talk page), etc.
While there is nothing disagreable in the content suggestions you make above (I'm ignoring the remarks you make about me - if you have any actual evidence of wrong-doing I suggest you provide evidence) for the rest of the article (GFDL, etc), I'm not sure how the rest relates to the dispute at hand and the resolution thereof. You should be making constructive remarks here. Axon (talk|contribs) 17:15, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
I have fully documented my revisions above, all of which are in accordance with Wikipedia policy (most notably the policies concerning weasel words and citations). You wanted me to be more active on this article: well, you've got your wish. If you wish to make modifications, please discuss them. Do not simply re-post your opinion in the thinly vieled guise of weasel words and vague, unsubstantiated claims. "Weasel words don't really give a neutral point of view; they just spread hearsay, or couch personal opinion in vague, indirect syntax. It's better to put a name and a face on an opinion than to assign an opinion to an anonymous source." (from Wikipedia:Avoid_weasel_terms) If you have a genuine interest in contributing to this article, then feel free to discuss your contributions here. Weasel words and vague, unsubstantiated assertions aren't going to cut it. -- Bblackmoor 17:50, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
I think you misunderstand what discussion is: you post your specific concerns, instead of vague accusations, and we discuss it untill agreement is reached. Please list exactly here what your concerns with the edits are, preferably on a line-by-line basis and we can work from that. In my mind at least, none of the above seems directly related to any of my edits. Axon (talk|contribs) 18:08, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
Stop re-posting your edits without discussing them first. Post, line by line, what edits you would like to make, and I will be happy to discuss them. -- Bblackmoor 18:11, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
If you would like to detail exactly what you object to about my edits, that would be preferable. I still have no idea what exactly you object to. Axon (talk|contribs) 09:20, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

"Primarily smaller game publishers"

I made several edits this morning: for the most part these are simply corrections and additions, a slight re-write of a couple of sections to smooth out the clunky prose, and the removal of a few weasel words and one section with blatant POV (which needs to be discussed before it is posted again). None of that should prove controversial, as it's primarily clarifying or expanding upon the content rather than altering its meaning.

However, I did make one change which substantially changes the meaning of the passage: in the second paragraph, I changed "A number of primarily smaller game developers have joined the open gaming initiative..." to "A number of role-playing game developers have joined the open gaming initiative...". There are two main reasons for this. First, "game developers" is vague. Thus the change to "role-playing game developers". Second, with the exception of WotC (which is owned by Hasbro), all role-playing game publishers are "small". Thus the removal of the redundant modifier "primarily small". -- BBlackmoor (talk) 09:05, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

Just re-affirming what I state below (in the section currently titled "Statements from both parties") -- that I intend to move forward and focus on the content of this article, and leave past unpleasantness in the past. I've posted (under the section "Time to get serious") what I think is a reasonable assessment of the article's current status[29] (not taking into account its later protection by SlimVirgin), and what I think are reasonable plans for its future development. We could either start with specific sections and work on them, or we could take a step back and look at the overall organization of the article first (although I generally think the pre-protection organization of the article was pretty good, I am sure it could be improved). I'll work with whatever seems reasonable to people. I encourage other editors to respond to my observations and suggestions, or make their own suggestions for the content of this article. -- BBlackmoor (talk) 18:39, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Glad to hear it, but are you going to discuss the problems related directly to the content dispute as per my request above? I can't really see a way to resolve this dispute unless we both discuss precisely why you keep deleting content from the article. Axon (talk|contribs) 18:50, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Editing: Overview

Since no one has responded to my suggestions for the general future of this article, I'll assume that no one has a problem with it (at least for the time being). Of course, that may change, but for now I'll move forward. Beginning at the beginning, here is the introductory section from the last undisputed version of the Open gaming article[30], and my suggested replacement (which is based on the most recent version which I helped to edit[31]). Suggestions for corrections, deletions, additions, and so on are welcome and invited. I'll be happy to discuss any of the changes I made, and my reasons for them. Once each section has been thoroughly discussed and there is concensus on what it should say, we can copy that section to the "live" article, and move on to the next section. -- BBlackmoor (talk) 05:29, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

--

Open gaming is the role-playing game movement, analagous to open source, where game-related content (rules, sourcebooks, etc) are published under a copyleft or open content license imparting the freedom to modify, copy, and redistribute them. Open gaming can also be used to refer to a type of role-playing game event where players free to join at any time. This essay deals primarily with the more common, former definition.

--

Open gaming is the movement within the role-playing game (RPG) industry that is somewhat analogous to the open source software movement. The open gaming movement refers to those who publish their content (rules, sourcebooks, etc.) under a "copyleft", open content, or free content license which grants the freedom to modify, copy, and redistribute some or all of the content, such as those who publish works derived or modified from the System Reference Document under the Open Gaming License. Open gaming can also be used to refer to a type of role-playing game event where players free to join at any time. This article deals with "open gaming" in the former sense.

A number of role-playing game publishers have joined the open gaming initiative, largely as a result of the release of the System Reference Document under the Open Gaming License by Wizards of the Coast. Open gaming has also been popular among amateur role-playing game and supplement authors. Several licenses have been used to facilitate open gaming. Despite this, the concept has yet to make a significant impact on games outside of pen-and-paper RPGs, and most commercial RPG publishers continue to use proprietary game systems.

--

I see you are top-posting again, BB. Please keep discussion in order of time for clarity and so that earlier responses to talk are not obscured. Obviously, I have repeatedly stated why we should not revert the version of the article mentioned aboveby BB I point people to my remarks below on this topic[32]. Otherwise, the other version of the article you mention is obviously disputed because of the section on the OOGL[33]. Axon (talk|contribs) 12:51, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

One thing I am concerned about is that just about every version of this page (disputed and otherwise) is shamefully light on citations and shamefully heavy on weasel words. One of my personal priorities, aside from simply turning this into a useful and intersting article, is to be more stringent when it comes to unsubstantiated claims. I believe that all of the claims made in the paragraphs I submitted above for the Overview section will be amply supported by facts further down in the article, but that is something we will have to keep a very careful eye on. If an assertion is made without it being amply supported by independent citations (either in that paragraph or elsewhere in the article), it ought to be rephrased or removed.
By "amply supported", I mean there ought to be several corroborating sources, and by "independent citations", I mean citations from sources other than the web site of the editor who happens to be adding the assertion (myself included), except in the rare case where the editor's website is the subject of the assertion (such as Axon posting a link to freeroleplay.org as a resource for web sites that support "open gaming" -- it's a valid link, and I have no problem with that at all). I think the "verifiability" and "no original research" policies strongly imply that this is the way to go. That's my take on it, anyway. -- BBlackmoor (talk) 21:10, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

No one has objected to or suggested re-phrasing anything in the "Overview" I submitted above. I'll give it a few more days, and if all is still quiet, I'll go ahead and revise the article using this "Overview", then move down to the next section. Sound like a plan? -- BBlackmoor (talk) 20:16, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

Since no one has suggested any modifications to this suggested version of the "Overview" section, I'm going ahead and copying this to the article, and we can move on ot the next section. -- BBlackmoor (talk) 19:10, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Open gaming (protected)

Bblackmoor, you've been causing trouble around this article since February. Axon is an established editor, and you have 48 edits to articles, at least under that account. That doesn't mean Axon's right, of course, but it means as an admin, I'm inclined to take him seriously, and the fact that you've gone through dispute resolution, including to the arbcom, and no one seems to agree with you reinforces that view. I'm therefore going to protect the article on Axon's version, and I'm asking you two to discuss all the issues one by one here before starting to edit again. It would also be a good idea to put up an article RfC to attract the opinions of other editors. Let me know when you'd like me to unlock the page. That goes for any other editor too. Cheers, SlimVirgin (talk) 11:34, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

You state that I have been disrupting that article since February 2005. That is not correct: User:Axon has been disrupting this article, dating back to December of 2004, when he began using this article as his soapbox[34]. It's unfortunate that you did not take a few minutes to read the history of the article before protecting it. Okay, let's say for sake of argument that you are just too busy to bother reading the edit history of the Open gaming article, and all you have to go on is the word of two editors. Let's suppose that you don't have the time to investigate the vandalism complaint I made against Axon -- since you obviously didn't check the facts before summarily deleting it.
Why on earth would you assume that one editor's complaints are valid and justified, and the other's are completely fabricated? Why would assume that one editor, whose only contributions to this article have been a) to revert other editor's contributions (primarily mine, but not just mine[35] [36] [37] [38]), and b) to post unsubstantiated opinion laden with weasel words?
Why would you assume that the complaints of the other editor, who has actually contributed much of the article's current content, and who has actively sought discussion on said content, are baseless?
For pete's sake, can't you exercise just a little effort before you declare that one editor's opinion should be enshrined as the incumbent version of the page? I even provided you a link to the last undisputed version[39] of the page! Do consensus, verifiability, and NPOV mean nothing to you? I am more than happy to discuss Axon's edits -- but you'll note that he doesn't discuss them. He has never discussed them, and you people do not do anything about it! That's part of why I took a break from Wikipedia for so long, out of frustration and disgust (other than taking a few minutes once a month to revert Axon's latest vandalism disputed edits [40]). Of course, once I was no longer actively participating in Wikipedia, Axon was free to claim all kinds of things without fear of anyone contradicting him. It's easy to claim that you want to discuss things when no one is around to take you up on the offer (I won't even address his other slanders during that time, all of which you appear to have taken at face value). You'll note that he still isn't actually discussing anything. What he does (which seems to work quite well) is "contribute" his unsubstantiated opinion, and then complain to you when anyone else makes any edits at all. And, incredibly, this tactic works, because you are either too busy or too indifferent to check the facts.
Will you READ the edit history of the page before giving preferencial treatment to one editor's unsubstantiated opinion? Or if that is simply too time consuming, at least read the section on the Talk page titled "Time to get serious" (which gives a brief overview of the current status of the Open gaming article)? PLEASE? -- BBlackmoor (talk) 17:27, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
I'm afraid I don't understand the issues, so I can't help to sort out the content dispute. What I suggest is that someone puts up an article RfC, or posts to the mailing list asking for input from other editors who know something about this area. The reason I favored Axon's version, Bblackmoor, is that you've made very few edits to articles, and Axon is an established editor. Also, you filed what appeared to be a malicious, or at least wrong-headed, vandalism report, and you've been personally attacking him, calling him a net loon and vandal. All this puts you in the wrong, I'm afraid, in terms of our policies. SlimVirgin (talk) 16:54, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
If you'd been dealing with him as long as I have, without any help from Wikipedia at all, you'd be calling him much worse than that. But you'll not need to worry on that account, because you refuse to read the page you've protected, nor the Talk page, nor even check the citations where I give you easy, one-click links to Axon's edit history. Any editor can recognize weasel words: you don't need to know "the issues" to spot them. Any editor can choose to protect an undisputed version of a page rather than being completely snowed by an editor who has never discussed their edits despite MONTHS of outright begging that he do so, but who is obviously better at "playing the system" than I am. Is it any wonder that I'm frustrated? -- BBlackmoor (talk) 17:01, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
How can you call your version undisputed? It is being disputed by an established editor. I've put up a Request for Comment at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Other, though I've no idea whether it will get a response. Bblackmoor, can you explain why you're so angry about this and why it matters to you so much? SlimVirgin (talk) 18:40, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
"How can you call your version undisputed?" Oh. My. God. The undisputed version -- for which I've given you the link at least THREE TIMES (make it four now[41]) -- was from a completely different user, predating all of this. Not only have you not read the page you're making decisions about, or the Talk page where most of this has been explained in detail over and again, you don't even read the Talk comments that you're replying to! AAAAAAAAAAAAARRGH! -- BBlackmoor (talk) 18:58, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
Sorry about that BB. Some of your comments have been so long that I've only scanned them to be honest. I'll take a look at that version when I can, but WP is very slow today. SlimVirgin (talk) 19:36, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
I think the above is misleading: it's true the version BB reverts to is someone else's version, but only because that is the last version of the article that deletes my own edits. Otherwise, BB is reverting to an old version of the October Open Gaming License section: there is no real dispute with any other part of the article. Axon (talk|contribs) 09:24, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
Don't feel bad, Slim; I've been trying to get a sense of what the conflict is on this page all week. BB and Axon are throwing a lot of policy and copyedit accusations at each other.... and that seems to be at a complete disconnect from the actual edit-war going on in the article... which appears to be a content issue. And I can't figure out what the content issue... is... exactly. One person seems to want to discuss the OOGL and maybe some criticism of it? And the other wants to remove it and/or whitewash? I think Axon is the inclusixe and BB the removal party, but I lose track since the talk discussion has nothing to do with anything.
...At this point, I think I'm just talking to myself... and indulging my love of the ellipses.
Fox1 19:59, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
That would be an accurate assessment, Fox1. Axon (talk|contribs) 09:24, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
Ok, I don't mind protecting on the 16:01 December 2, 2004 version as BB suggested, if Axon agrees. Axon, what do you think? Fox1, thanks, and I think your ellipses are very nice. I can see why you love them. ;-) SlimVirgin (talk) 20:16, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
Hi SV, I would politely disgree that we protect on the December 2 version: BB's long-term objective here is to remove and whitewash all mention of the OOGL from Wikipedia[42] [43][44] so an older version before the OOGL edits would, effectively, be a version preferable to him and that is disputed by me, IMHO. I would ask we protect on the current version as-is so that BB is at least motivated to give discussion on the talk page with me a fair chance. Otherwise, I feel that it would be rewarding BB's flouting of Wikipedia policy for which he has been successfully blocked twice and punish me for abiding by Wikipedia policy. Axon (talk|contribs) 09:16, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Statements by both parties

Okay, deep breath... I'll try to hit the high spots for people who came in late. Maybe someone will go to the trouble of reading it and clicking the reference links.

Once upon a time, the Open gaming article looked like this[45]. Axon thought that it was a good idea to devote most of the article to his criticisms of a license which had, at that time, not been used for around two years[46]. Some of what he posted was factual; some was not. Initially, I thought that this was a waste of time and undermined the value of the article. As a result of the RfC (which I requested), I changed my mind, and decided that it was a worthwhile footnote in the history of "open gaming". To that end, and in accordance with what little community response there was (Axon himself refusing to discuss anything), I added factual details to the section on the OOGL, and removed the unsubstantiated opinion and weasel words which Axon had contributed. He would immediately delete verifiable facts and replace them with weasel words and assertions.

This continued interminably. I requested assistance from Wikipedia (in the form of surveys, an RFC, and a Request For Arbitration), and, much like now, no one could be bothered to review the facts before taking action. Axon's efforts were more effective than mine: he refrained participating in any discussion, and sabotaged what little discussion there was. He was also more patient, and that patience was rewarded: I eventually gave up in frustration, and swore off Wikipedia for a number of months. In my absence, he said a lot of things, not all of which were true. About once a month I would take a minute or two to revert Axon's vandalism disputed edits, and he would promptly add it again, even going so far as reverting corrections to spelling and grammar[47] [48] [49] [50]. That was the state of things throughout the spring and summer of 2005.

Now, in October 2005, I have decided to become an active editor again[51]. In that vein, I posted a pretty thorough review of my previous edits of the Open gaming article, along with what I consider to be reasonable plans for its future development[52]. I invited any and all interested parties, including Axon, to participate. As before, Axon has yet to discuss anything. -- BBlackmoor (talk) 21:41, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

The above is incomplete: you have failed to mention the bad faith tactics you have indulged in, thepersonal attacks[53][54], the meat pupetting[55][56] and the other tactics. I would also note that I have made several efforts to discuss the above with you[57][58][59]. If you can't even admit that much, I don't know what else we can do. Axon (talk|contribs) 09:18, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
To summarise: the dispute revolves around the October Open Gaming License with is authored by the BB. BB's objective is to delete and remove all mention of it[60], and get me banned in the process[61] for the trouble of mentioning it in the article. Originally, he deleted the content without discussion with me and has had a history of refusing to discuss content on this topic, preferring to rules lawyer in this area. Whilst he did indeed start the dispute resolution process, it was peppered with personal attacks and bad faith tactics such as incivility, top posting, threats that I would be banned and other such tactics and effectively side-lined me from the process. Regardless, the RfC was far from inconclusive, as BB has suggested, and in fact conclusively found in favour of keeping the section on the OOGL.
However, When he realised that he could not force me to compromise without compromising himself (i.e. treating me with civility and discussing the content reasonably) BB started an abortive RfAr against me which demonstrably failed because the ArbCom felt, similarly, that he had not properly attempted dispute resolution. His tactics since then have been far worse as I have highlighted to SV. I would admit I have reverted other edits along with my attempts to re-add my content for the OOGL section, but such is the nature of reverts that sometimes other edits are included by accident of by expediency. However, as can be seen from the "Time to get serious" section above, he continues to flip-flop on actually highlighting what content exactly he objects to. Axon (talk|contribs) 09:32, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
I would also like to note that BB has since been editing my user pages[62]. Although he did subsequently revert his changes, I can't help feeling this is yet more evidence of his inability to work in a civil manner. Axon (talk|contribs) 09:47, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
Well, I'm not going to spend all day on this, so I'll hit the high points.
  • Is my "long-term objective here is to remove and whitewash all mention of the OOGL from Wikipedia"? Well, I don't claim to know what Axon means by "whitewash" (in context, it appears to mean "remove Axon's POV"), but as I stated above, when Axon added his POV on the October Open Gaming License to the Open gaming article last December, I considered it an irrelevant distraction which undermined the quality of the article. As a result of the RfC that _I requested_, I was convinced otherwise. In point of fact, I contributed nearly all of the verifiable facts in that section of the Open gaming article (most of which, of course, Axon repeatedly deletes).
  • Have I "deleted the content without discussion with [Axon]"? Yes, repeatedly, because Axon refuses to discuss his edits. Has Axon posted his POV, and reverted any and all changes to this article (including sections which have nothing to do with the OOGL) without discussion from anyone? Yes, repeatedly. Has Axon contributed anything to this article other than his OOGL-related POV? Precious little. Have I contributed to this article, other than OOGL-related information? Yes, quite a bit. Has Axon repeatedly deleted other people's edits (primarily mine, but not just mine) regardless of the subject, without disussion from anyone? Yes, repeatedly.
  • Have I been uncivil? Oh, yes. On the other hand, I feel I have been far more civil than Axon deserves. However, it has been made clear to me that on Wikipedia civility is more important than accuracy, so I intend to be civil from this point forward (from a couple of days ago forward, actually). If I can't say something civil, I will not say anything at all.
  • I aborted the RfAr because it became painfully obvious from the ArbCom's comnments that they were not going to the trouble of actually reviewing the edit history of the Open gaming article, and were making suggestions which had been already tried repeatedly for months, which they would have known had they bothered to examine the history of the dispute. (With all due respect to SlimVirgin, I think she has learned recently that this is not an outrageous claim.) I was disgusted with the whole process, and swore off Wikipedia for the better part of a year. Frankly, by that time, my patience with the whole ordeal was just exhausted.
  • Have I edited Axon's user pages? Yes, to demonstrate his hypocrisy. I reverted those changes a day or two later, essentially because I felt it was counterproductive and petty.
  • Have I ever been banned from Wikipedia? Yes, once: SlimVirgin banned me for a day earlier this week for filing a vandalism complaint against Axon (with specific facts and citations to back it up). SlimVirgin has never explained why I was banned, but I assume it was because of my "uncivil" behavior. (Axon has brought to my attention that I actually was banned earlier this year, during the time I had sworn off Wikipedia, which is why I wasn't even aware of it until yesterday. It's safe to say that Axon had something to do with that, since he knew about it and I didn't, but other than that it's a mystery to me. Frankly, I don't see much point in investigating it, either.)
  • Axon makes a great many malicious claims about me. I am not going to bother to refute them all individually. Life is too short. Suffice to say that Axon says a lot of things. Not all of them are true.
Now, over half of what I've just written is a repetition of what I've written above at least once, if not several times, before. I do not intend to repeat myself any further. The facts are plain, and I am not going to spend the next several years of my life playing "he said/she said" with Axon. The past is a matter of record, and anyne who wants to examine it may do so without my help. If that means Axon continues to make spurious claims uncontested, so be it. I am making a choice to move forward.
What I intend to do, from this point forward, is discuss the content of this article with anyone else who would like to discuss the content of this article. I posted above, in the "Time to get serious" and "Primarily smaller game publishers" sections, what I think is a reasonable assessment of the article's current status (not taking into account its later protection by SlimVirgin), and what I think are reasonable plans for its future development. It is my hope that someone out there will share my goal of making this article factual, educational, interesting, well-written, and in accordance with Wikipedia's various policies on article content. -- BBlackmoor (talk) 17:31, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
In line with my intention to focus on the content of this article, and put past unpleasantness in the past, I am refreshing my knowledge of the various Wikipedia content policies. Until earlier this week, I'd been away from Wikipedia for the better part of a year, and if I ever was familiar with them all, I certainly needed a fresher. One of the policies that I think is relevant to Axon's complaints about me, and mine about him, concerns "vandalism". We have accused each other of vandalism numerous times, and for my part the accusation was sincere. However, it is clear from reading the policy on Wikipedia:Vandalism that these accusations were in error. For myself, I would say that all of the actions by Axon which I characterized as "vandalism" are listed explicitly under the heading What vandalism is not. It doesn't get much clearer than that. Ergo, from this point forward I will make a serious effort to be more fastidious when referring to the actions of other editors, despite how strongly I disagree with them. I am not going to go back and re-edit my previous comments, because I don't want to be accused of "whitewashing" (heavens forbid), but I am making it clear that I acknowledge the error and will strive to prevent repeating it. -- BBlackmoor (talk) 21:25, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
Hmmm... I don't really have the time to go through all of that and I don't really see much point: most of it is the normal mix of unverifiable and dubious conjecture (for example, you only "aborted" the RfAr after the majority of ArbCom had voted to reject it in the first place) covered by a generous helping of vague accusation. I think BB's actions (the personal attacks, the mallicious vandalism reports, his anonymous vandalism of this page, the user page vandalism) speak for themselves. Again, if he has any actual evidence of wrong-doing on my part I ask he give real evidence here (preferably as succintly as possible).
I do find it amusing that you claim (using good, old bold letters) that you want to talk about the content only, after you spend an essay writing about non-content issues, and when you have yet to actually raise any specific points about the content above and ignore my requests for the same. Once again, I politely request you let me know your actual concerns with my edits are and perhaps we can get some agreement with this while the page is protected. Axon (talk|contribs) 18:17, 10 October 2005 (UTC)