Wikipedia Mediation Cabal
Status	closed
Request date	Unknown
Requesting party	Unknown
Parties involved	KCMODevin, Warthog32, 64.174.34.252, DocVM (perhaps more)
Mediator(s)	Arknascar44 (talk · contribs)

[[Category:Wikipedia Medcab closed cases|]][[Category:Wikipedia medcab maintenance|]]

Request details

Who are the involved parties?

KCMODevin Awotter Warthog32 64.174.34.252

What's going on?

In August of this year I initially added ((fact)) to 3 paragraphs in the Article section of World War II Online that made claims that were unreferenced. Came back in September, no references were added, I looked could not find any and deleted the disputed information. It was added back, this time with references. You cannot access the links without being a paying subscriber to the video game in question. I've been trying to make the case that they do not meet guidelines on the discussion page and on the Video Game project talk page. I asked for editor advise because I was concerned maybe I was starting to be to strident or wikilawyering (I'm fairly new to this editor stuff) some advise was it was correct to point out policy and to continue. I added an Rfc. based on a comment by an editor I thought there was a way to compromise and include the information or at least show how it could be accessed via a web forum search so this morning I did a significant amount of editing to the article, both related to the original material and other aspects. Now someones just come along with an unregistered IP and wiped out everything I contributed, I don't even know how to restore what was undone. Warthog at least replied constructively, KCMODevin won't even try it seems and the complete undo just made me very discouraged to say the least.

What would you like to change about that?

I'd like someway to have a disinterested third person(s) at least point out to those involved that there are bigger issues than just blindly protecting an article because you don't agree with any criticisms and won't tolerate any attempts by others to contribute.

Mediator notes

Hello all. I would like to take up this case :) Also, this would be one of my first MEDCab cases, if that is an issue to anyone. Otherwise, I would love to help. Thanks, ( arky ) 19:42, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, that won't be a prolem, you're a respected member of the community and all that ;-) Phoenix-wiki ^{(talk · contribs)} 20:27, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Administrative notes

Discussion

I don't think anyone is "blindly protecting an article because you don't agree with any criticisms and won't tolerate any attempts by others to contribute". Awotter posted reference requests and I spent quite a bit of time honoring that request by finding developer statements that backed up the text in question.

In response, he has deleted these saying they aren't peer-reviewed third-party references. However, I initiated a discussion on Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Video_games/Article_guidelines#Acceptable_video_game_reference_material to get some clarification. There so far has been a consensus amongst four users (User:Warthog32, User:KCMODevin, User:Nifboy, User:Anomie) that game developers are a reasonable primary source, in the absence of other published materials to the contrary. So far, Awotter hasn't provided any alternate reference to contradict the developer's claims, although he has made it clear that he personally doesn't trust the developer because of alleged false statements in the past (he hasn't named specifics).

I am not blindly protecting an article, and many other people have contributed to the article. I simply don't think he has a good argument here, his reasons for deleting large portions of referenced text are not strong, and there are enough editors that agree with this position that he's been outvoted. Warthog32 (talk) 21:34, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't misquote me or put words into my mouth: It's a fun game, I played it for years beginning the week it launched but I've been skeptical about the developers claims from the beta because they often didn't pan out or were exaggerated. From the beginning the burden of proof has been on the original editor. URL references that are accessible only to paying customers on a web forum are not legitimate under any circumstances. I don't know why that point is continuously being over looked here. I'm not making it up. the changes I made to the article were my best attempt at including information based on what you and others think is acceptable even though I strongly disagree. You not only erased that you erased all the other material I added to the article, material that's well outside the one disputed section. Awotter (talk) 22:16, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your viewpoint is not overlooked, but I simply don't agree, and other editors have shared my viewpoint. This is a reference. A reference that is available to the majority of people who are interested in the subject matter. True, access requires a subscription fee. But, this is no different than a pay-for-subscription periodical - a newspaper, magazine, a professional journal, conference proceeds...

I simply don't understand why a perfectly good reference should be thrown out because it isn't publically accessible to everyone on the internet.

Further, you still haven't given any reason to doubt the accuracy of the original content. I apologize if you feel I misquoted you, but your quote above is the only thing I've seen from you that indicates why you think the passages you want deleted are inaccurate.

Warthog32 (talk) 22:26, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your point about paying to access references is completely and utterly false, no matter what you or a hundred other people think because it's a very important part of policy, not just a meaningless rule that is subject to a vote.. I tried to give people a way around that in my update, you and an anonymous user simply deleted all that out of hand by reverting the article. At this point I don't care. This was about following acceptable policies and guidelines in relation to material that is liable to be challenged. Verifiable references allow the reader to make the decision if something is at least reasonably accurate. the whole point of references isn't that they prove something is true or not, it's that they can be checked and the more reliable and objective they are the better. The articles a mess, there's a hundred other things in it that are so far from what should be in a good article it's not funny. I ignored all of that and just focused on a section that makes claims i was skeptical about. I had a right to do that and all I got was attacks, was told I was making a point, was told to leave the article alone and that i was "outvoted". I think I got too involved in it but I know I tried to explain why and backed that up with what is the best consensus of Wikipedia. So as it stands the mess is right back where it started and some other editor can try and buck the fanbois. Good luck to them. Awotter (talk) 23:23, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm really trying to ignore the statement that the article is a mess, but it's hard to do. I find that very offensive given that I and many other editors have put a large amount of effort into improving it. Yes, it is a work in progress, but every Wikipedia article is, by nature.

I'm really not sure how to progress on the reference issue. I tried looking for other opinions by going to the gaming project for policy opinions. I tried discussing it in the talk forum. Opinions seem to be with me on this, and at the same time, your above statement seems to indicate to me that even if 100 of us agree, we're wrong. Do you have any suggestions how we can find a consensus you can agree on?

The crux of your concern seems to be on the fact that the link is only accessible by paid subscribers of the game. Perhaps you could provide a link to Wikipedia policy that shows that all references must be available on the Internet without a fee?

I'm also still not sure where you stand on the actual accuracy of the text that's being deleted. Do you actually believe it is in accurate, or are you simply trying to delete it because you think that it must be referenced?

Warthog32 (talk) 02:25, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to note that a paid subscription is not needed to access the forum links, an account is needed but one can be obtained for free by signing up for a 14 day free trial. You will not be able to post with a trial account, but you can read. --KrennVonSalzburg 22:44, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've been over and over the policies and guidelines, worked on many non-related articles and I'm sorry those references from one source still aren't acceptable because in the end all they are is non-verifiable information from the company. It's not about whether that information is true or false it's the fact that a statement can be easily accessed and checked and is something that is notable about the subject of the article. Those are standards all articles have to meet and this case doesn't begin to meet the extraordinary circumstances that would allow for an exception. The article has now been blocked from editing for six months, that was not an extension I asked for and in any case it appears exactly as it did before I became involved. I've made it clear that the constant reverts by one editor KCMODevin are borderline vandalism and the other ones that were done should not have been, especially because the changes made were done to better the over all quality of the article and not just address this issue.Awotter 05:50, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Again, please show me the exact text in the wikipedia policies that say that references must be easily accessed. I don't believe it exists.

As for your concern as to whether CRS is an acceptable source for references on the topic, it all boils down to Wikipedia:Reliable Sources. Clearly, CRS is a primary source (or in the terminology used on the page, a SPS). And, as the section quite clearly says: "Self-published material may, in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications.".

CRS is the author of the code, and they qualify as an established expert that has been relied apon as a source by third-party publications.

Granted, other sources, if available would be preferred if they exist. But they don't. CRS's code is not public, and so no other sources can exist. I see no reason to delete large portions of text because of this fact, and that is exactly the sentiment that other editors have voiced.

Warthog32 (talk) 00:44, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks arky, for posting what you did. Although, in my mind, this is still a style guideline for external links, as opposed to a hard rule for references. I do agree that freely accessible reference (available without registration) would be better, and so references like I provided "should be avoided". However, in the absence of anything better, should suffice. The alternative is deleting large portions of text which do have references available -- just not "the best theoretically possible - but not practically possible".

Warthog32 (talk) 00:24, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that game developers are sometimes necessary to fill in the blanks, in this case the topic of in-game ballistics/damage modeling needs to be referenced. I would think that a developer's detailed description of this topic should suffice. Perhaps to settle this, the developers could be contacted and they could either: provide the information directly or post their description somewhere that is open to all (one of their blog's or the general announcement forum). I believe that this aspect of the game is worth notice as it is unique and a core mechanic of the game. The issue is finding a proper reference, and for that I believe our only source is the developers. I don't think it is unreasonable to ask those who created the engine to describe it. DocVM (talk) 03:44, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mediation

Hello all! Sorry about my absence; I've had some real life issues to take care of :)

Now, on to the mediation. As a prelude, I would like to say that I will stick to policy if I can and quote it word for word so that there is no question pertaining to my opinion toward either side in this case (I have none =D).

Firstly, I will begin with the issue of the reference. Wikipedia:External links states:

Sites that require registration or a paid subscription should be avoided because they are of limited use to most readers. Many online newspapers require registration to access some or all of their content, while some require a subscription. Online magazines frequently require subscriptions to access their sites or for premium content. If old newspaper and magazines articles are archived, there is usually a fee for accessing them. A site that requires registration or a subscription should not be linked unless the web site itself is the topic of the article.

Now, of course, there may be exceptions, but I'm just providing some food for though among the parties involved :) Cheers, ( arky ) 16:29, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your time arky. I appreciate the feedback.Awotter (talk) 11:00, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You might as well have the page unprotected. The only consensus here is that World War II Online is entitled to use any reference, from any where, free or not. Just wanted to point that out again because the issue is not about External Links it's about the use of reliable and verifiable sources to document facts and claims in an article. These folks OWN the article, so I won't be editing it all since it's a complete waste of time.Awotter (talk) 22:15, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Closing case

Unless anyone objects, I'll close this case. Addhoc (talk) 10:13, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]