Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Kender/Archive003

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Starting questions 1.1 Response from Gavin Collins 1.2 Response from Bilby 1.3 Response from BOZ 1.4 Response from Jéské 1.5 Response from SamBC 1.6 Response from Ursasapien 1.7 Response from Hiding 2 Additional questions 2.1 Response from Gavin Collins 2.2 Response from Bilby 2.3 Response from SamBC 2.4 Response from Ursasapien 2.5 Response from BOZ 2.6 Response from Jéské 2.7 Response from Hiding 3 Thanks

[edit] Starting questions

• What Wikipedia principles are absolutely essential to you?
• Why are you interested in this topic area?
• What areas of this dispute are you most willing to compromise on?
• What are some good things about the people you disagree with in this case?
• In terms of content, what has been the greatest difficulty for you in this area?
• In general terms, what is the best way to handle the content in this topic area?

Please keep your answers brief and to the point. Please do not reply or comment about the answers of other editors, but instead just focus on your answers. Cheers! Vassyana (talk) 12:33, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Response from Gavin Collins

• My view is that articles on fictional topics should be contain real world content from reliable secondary sources that demonstrate the notability of the subject matter outside the source material and support the information as it is presented.
• I am interested in this topic area because Kender are fictional characters that are derived from Role-Playing Games, a genre which interests me contains or is related to many articles that are in need of substantial cleanup.
• I am willing to compromise on which aspects of cleanup need to be addressed, whether it is originial research, synthesis excessive plot or character summary and or trivia.
• The good things about the people I disagree with in this case is that they are well intentioned, are at least willing to discuss content issues, and would like to see this article be sourced more extensively.
• In terms of content, I have had greatest difficulty in discerning whether the content is made up of plot summary, original research, synthesis or trivia, as this article appears to mix all of these together into a unpalettable cocktail.
• I would like this article to be cleaned up or merged with a topic that is better written if this is not possible, but I am open and willing to compromise on how cleanup is achieved.

That concludes my "answers". --Gavin Collins (talk) 15:28, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Response from Bilby

• Probably the notion of consensus and the more general idea that anyone should be free to edit and develop materials within Wikipedia. And verifiability matters a great deal to me, as does the insistence on reliable sources.
• A mix of things. Partially I'm interested because I used to play the games when I was (much) younger, and have always held a considerable degree of fondness for the topic and related issues. And in part I see it as useful to Wikipedia on many levels - from the direct (the topic being one that I think warrants coverage) to the more indirect (it is an area which helps with the "shape" of Wikipedia, and provides a potential avenue of entry for new editors).
• Compromise is getting tricky - however, I'm certainly willing to compromise on how the articles should be fixed, and may well be willing to compromise on the nature of the problems. I'm also happy to be proven wrong, which isn't really a "compromise" issue so much as an "I was an idiot" issue.
• I have a lot of respect for someone who is willing to stand by their principles, and acknowledge when those principles have been met, rather than oppose for the sake of it. Gavin, in particular, seems to me to be someone with strong opinions, but who isn't just opposing to cause disruption - when Red Hand of Doom reached the standard he expected, he willingly and ungrudgingly acknowledged it.
• Content-wise, the greatest difficulty is working out the best way of describing the problems. While there are questions in regard to notability with some of the topics, there is general agreement (certainly from me) that the articles have significant problems. The most consistent problem is to do with notability and what would constitute it, but the issue in relation to Kender is the difference between excessive plot, in-universe content and in-universe style, and trying to reach an agreement about them.
• Have an agreed set of standards and definitions which editors can work towards, that still leaves open the possibility that they can be reasonably achieved, and which are consistent with expert opinion in regard to the articles. Then to apply those standards and definitions in a way that is non-confrontational for all parties, encouraging both experienced and inexperienced editors to work towards improvement and informing them of the best manner by which it can be achieved. Admittedly, I (almost literally) live for definitions.

Bilby (talk) 13:48, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Response from BOZ

I view the questions as regarding role-playing game (RPG) articles as a whole, rather than just the Kender article specifically, and have formulated my answers as such.

• I believe that Wikipedia:Five Pillars sums it up quite nicely for me, and that each pillar should be given roughly equal weight, and that all five should be taken together as a whole and a sum of their parts. Particularly, consensus-building, neutral point of view, no original research, maintaining civility, anyone may edit, and ignore all rules, are the most important to me.
• I am interested in this topic area because I have played RPGs for roughly 20 years now, and have participated in online forums regarding these games for several years, and have a substantial collection of RPG materials. I believe this has granted me a fair amount of expertise in the subject, and I wish to increase coverage of the topic to make Wikipedia a more comprehensive resource.
• I am willing to compromise on any issue regarding an article for which a clear consensus has formed (or has a strong potential to form) between editors on the article's talk page or an AFD, or on any specific issue regarding multiple articles when a consensus forms among involved editors on another appropriate page.
• Gavin is very persistent with an impressive amount of energy and determination to stick with his goals, and believes in what he is doing no matter how many people tell him he is going about things the wrong way.
• In terms of content, I have had the greatest difficulty in providing reliable secondary sources for articles to meet the notability standards as they are currently written, which seems to be a major point of contention. For RPGs, such sources may not exist online at all, and many exist in out of print paper sources that can be hard to come by; in general, I usually have no idea how to find such information, although I know some people do. However, I do believe a larger issue is made out of the notability guideline (not policy) than it deserves, and there has been much debate over how the notability guideline and its sub-guidelines apply to RPGs and other games.
• I believe we must work towards building a consensus that we can work with on RPG material. Improving articles means finding whatever reliable sources are available whenever we can, adding whatever real world information is available and fixing in-universe style content, and condensing overlong plot summaries.

BOZ (talk) 14:18, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Response from Jéské

As with BOZ, I regard the dispute as regarding RPG articles en generale; nevertheless, some of my answers (marked with an asterisk) apply to all articles I've become involved in.

1. The ones I favor most are WP:NOT (in particular IINFO, CBALL, and CENSORED), WP:V, WP:RS, and WP:N.*
2. My interest in the topic area stems from the fact that I am a Dungeon Master myself and am rather intimate with the rules. However, while such is true, I create (and use) custom content rather often and so when it comes to creatures and races I only have screamsheet knowledge.
3. At present, my mindset makes compromises hard, due to the other articles where I work and the behavior of many of those opposing and removing the tags not named in this mediation.*
4. Gavin.collins is well-intentioned and working in good faith, something his (unnamed) detractors have been consistently failing to recognize. It is for this reason I generally revert removal of the tags if nothing has been done to the article that I can see.
5. In terms of content the largest problem hasn't been with content; it's been with the tags and the edit-warring over them by (again) parties unmentioned in this mediation. Those removing them have not even done the bare minimum sourcing to fix them; I would like to see those articles sourced.
6. The best way to handle the problems in this area here, unfortunately, fall outside RfM's remit and may require an RfC or -Arb, as the people removing Collins' tags (which other, uninvolved, users largely support) don't even discuss things until the page is protected or until they get dragged up before administrators due to their behavior. Only once these drive-by reverters are dealt with can any attempt be made to negotiate and improve the articles.

-Jéské ^{(v^_^v E pluribus unum)} 18:22, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Response from SamBC

• Again, I'm talking about the whole RPG/gaming-related thing, not just the one (exemplar) article.

1. The most essential principle (bar those with legal basis) is consensus. None of us can really say exactly what it means, but we all (generally) have a similar feel for it, and it's important that, however strong our feelings, however right we are sure we are, we bow to consensus when it is clearly formed. There are then lots of questions about local versus wiki-wide consensus, but skirting away from the complex issues, that's the gist of it.
2. I've been a gamer of one sort or another (board games, wargames, RPGs, etc) for as long as I can remember; I was barely in school when I started with some of the simple Games Workshop games. That doesn't mean I support any and all gaming-related articles, it's just why I'm interested.
3. That's an awkward one. I know it's not what people are supposed to say here, but I feel that I, personally, have compromised a great deal already. I know from experience (on- and off-wiki) that my usual habit of trying to compromise quickly makes people think that my compromise proposals are actually what I, personally, feel should be done, but they usually aren't. Often I'll never even say exactly what I think should be done, pre-compromise. I agree with, or have already internalised a compromise regarding, most (just about) of Gavin's more recent tags; I agree with the fact of tagging the vast majority of the articles that are tagged, but not necessarily with all the tags. I'm willing to compromise in many ways, generally, but I can't actually identify any more routes of compromise.
4. Gavin is persistent, and I don't mean that as a barbed compliment; however hard it may be sometimes, it does try to explain his position, and I can only assume he has a lot of patience with this.
5. Actual content, little or none (except with other parties); there's a lot that needs fixing. However, if we consider tags as "content", then the problem is that, as far as I can tell, Gavin isn't satisfied with tagging an article with enough, the most important, or unarguable tags, he wants to tag them with every cleanup tag that is applicable even vaguely. This comes across off the bat as adversarial, and sometimes seems very much lacking in AGF.
   • There's also been a problem with terminology, which is sort of content. Gavin has contests the use of "race" for its usual use in fantasy (elves, dwarves, men are all "races"), and suggests that, as it's only used like that in fiction (which is a dubious assertion), it should not be used in that sense in articles, even where the articles are about fictional elements in fantasy, and that is the terms used in the industry, the general mileu, even, AFAICT, in critical literature. Similarly, there's been issues with the word "generic", which is used in the gaming industry to mean "general, universal, applying to a broad range" (my reading indicates this is the older use of the world) while Gavin contests that we shouldn't use it in that way, either in discussions or articles, because of some apparent legal meaning (exemplified by generic versions of medication), which AFAICT is only attested from the 1970s.
6. Well, differently from how a lot of folks seem to handle it. I certainly believe that articles on fictional topics shouldn't be full of fictional details only; I've compromised on the amount, over time, and feel that there ought to be, generally, a roughly 50/50 split of "real-world" and fictional material, or less fictional than that if it fits better. In terms of articles presenting game-mechanics content, I think there's certainly a place for a reasonable amount of it, as it's a matter of comparison between games/systems/races/etc. There's an awful lot of fanboy-ish (or fangirl-ish) stuff in some areas, and Kender is a good example. A lot of races and monsters should be merged, and a lot of articles with seemingly unsourced (presumably unattributed) material need fixing.

Well, that kinda covers it. SamBC(talk) 20:12, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Response from Ursasapien

First, I am answering these questions without looking/reading other's responses so I can better focus on my answers. I will attempt to answer them as genuinely and directly as possible.

• Of course, I must start with the five pillars. I highly value all of them, but I tend to place extra value on the fourth pillar which has to do with editorial conduct. I am a true believer in the value of creating the greatest encyclopedia and I am convinced that collegial editorial conduct (consensus, assuming good faith, civility, etc.) is the best way to accomplish this goal.
• I am interested in a number of topics. I particularly enjoy fiction and I think there are some issues with Wikipedia's coverage of fiction. As a community, we are having a difficult time deciding what kind of encyclopedia we want to be. We have a wide spectrum of opinion regarding the proper way to cover fiction and balance our desire for scholarship versus comprehensive coverage. I have waded into several discussions regarding our coverage of fiction from the policy level to the article level.
• I am willing to compromise on any area. However, compromise means two or more parties must give something up. Like I said before, I truly believe that reasoned discussion followed by the building of consensus is the best way to improve the encyclopedia.
• They all seem to be committed to the encyclopedia and they all seem to have passion and commitment to this process.
• I tend toward inclusionism and eventualism. Therefore, I have more distress when potentially notable, verifiable information is removed than when dubious crufty material remains. I have a great deal of difficulty when an editor or small group of editors insist that coverage or process must go their way. I understand the need for sources and the need to demonstrate notability and verifiability, but I think articles should be given a good deal of time to improve.
• I think the Dungeons and Dragons Wikiproject should undertake an improvement drive, utilizing the passion and commitment of the editors that are involved here. I believe, with Kender specifically, we have a number of paper sources already and editors just need to use this material to cite various information in the article. It could use some editing to make it read less "in-universe" and could probably be trimmed some. I would be willing to consider a merge to a list article until such time as the article can establish notability, but that would not be my first choice. Essentially, this does not seem like an urgent problem.

I have tried to be brief. This all seems simple to me, but it would not be the first time I was told I was a bit naive. I look forward to reading other's responses and working with them to resolve this issue. Ursasapien (talk) 05:19, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Response from Hiding

I have only interacted with Gavin at policy and guidance pages. The principles most important to me are those found at WP:5P, especially WP:CONSENSUS. I am willing to compromise on anything related to my edits to policy and guideline pages in order to build a consensus, but I believe in building a consensus in line with WP:CONSENSUS, WP:CIV and WP:AGF. I think Gavin believes in Wikipedia, and desires to edit Wikipedia in order to improve it. The greatest difficulty in terms of content is understanding what the content should be changed to. The best way to handle policy and guidance is to edit and discuss it until a consensus is reached, reaching a consensus with other editors being the goal, not seeing your own views enacted. Hiding T 23:27, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Additional questions

• What non-article discussions provide good examples of the issues in dispute?
• What article discussions, besides those articles already listed in the mediation request, provide good examples of the issues in dispute?

Cheers! Vassyana (talk) 18:28, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Response from Gavin Collins

• A general discussion about cleanup of articles about Role-Playing Games was initiated by me at The Village Pump back in September 2007. I have had a similar cleanup discussion with Pinball22 at the my RFC regarding the Tagging Articles which continues in the section Further Discussions.
• I cannot think of a single instance of an RPG article where there has been a dispute about cleanup issues that did not involve me, which may be due to there being no instance of a member of a RPG project who has actually added a cleanup template to any RPG project (other than to propose an article merger) on their own initiative. A similar dispute over cleanup did arise over the issue of in universe prespective in relation to the article Drizzt_Do'Urden, where the use of the in universe cleanup template was disputed. The template has since been restored, possibly by me.

I hope this helps putting the disucssions in context.--Gavin Collins (talk) 10:39, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Response from Bilby

• Other than those Gavin has mentioned, there were a few discussions on the project talk page, such as this one, and on Gavin's talk page, such as this, this and this. I'm a bit uncomfortable raising the talk page, though, as that tends to wander off into disputes that aren't strictly to do with content, so I'm not sure if discussions on his page should be raised.
• In terms of other articles, I guess I'd toss in Dan Willis and Paizo Publishing, although they may not be great examples. There are others, I'm sure, and someone else should be able to volunteer some, but they tend to be along the same lines as those already listed. (Which is part of the problem - the same arguments from both sides resurfacing on multiple pages).

Bilby (talk) 13:25, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Response from SamBC

• I feel that the discussion at WT:FICT is quite illustrative, especailly where Gavin "refuse[s] to be drawn" on the question of whether he feels that any fictional topic should be included in wikipedia (that might be in an archive by now, I haven't time to find it, but I doubt that Gavin would deny making that statement).
• In terms of articles, another good illustration (that I already mentioned) is at Talk:Generic role-playing game system, regarding the application of the term "generic". SamBC(talk) 10:11, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Response from Ursasapien

• I think Sam makes a good point regarding Gavin's stance on policy issues at WT:FICT and WT:NOT. Additionally, Gavin criticizes me for not be able to engage in discussion on my talk page after he refuses to engage in discussion on his talk page. I know this might seem like it is getting closer to behavior as opposed to content, but Gavin's insistence that he is right closes down all discussion regarding content.
• Talk:Sigil (Dungeons & Dragons) is a good example of the kinds of discussions that go on.

Ursasapien (talk) 10:47, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Response from BOZ

• I'm assuming "non-article discussions" includes AFD debates, where various people have disputed with Gavin as much as on the articles themselves. In particular, reference Axe of the Dwarvish Lords, Death knight, Rod of Seven Parts, and Slaad for example. This goes back to the AFDs when he first began editing RPG articles, such as List of GURPS books and GURPS 4e Basic Set. When I solicited opinions on whether or not to bring up this case at all, among the overwhelming support at the WikiProject talk page some people did mention examples of other places they have had issues with him.
• As Gavin notes, many of the disputes on RPG articles have involved him. I listed several on the request page, he listed several more, others above have thrown in a few; we could probably add a few dozen more if necessary, but I can't think of any more in particular that need to be mentioned.

BOZ (talk) 14:28, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Response from Jéské

I can't think of any other discussions besides what has been already brought up and the AN/I thread I mentioned above. -Jéské ^{(v^_^v E pluribus unum)} 18:45, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Response from Hiding

See WT:NOT. Hiding T 23:19, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

Thanks everyone for so quickly and concisely answering my questions. I am taking a little time to make sure I read over them a few times and take a better look around to make sure I understand the history and where everyone is coming from. There should not be more than a day or two delay while I do this. If you have any questions, feel free to drop me a line. Cheers! Vassyana (talk) 19:46, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, and you're welcome! :) BOZ (talk) 00:47, 14 May 2008 (UTC)