Wikipedia Mediation Cabal

Article	Soundboard prank call
Status	Closed
Request date	00:46, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
Requesting party	Unknown
Parties involved	Hbdragon88, KirkCliff2
Mediator(s)	Gaelen S.
Comment	Discussion has Begun

Request details

Where is the dispute?

Who is involved?

Just a list of the users involved. For example:

Hbdragon88 (talk · contribs)
KirkCliff2 (talk · contribs)

What is the dispute?

The dispute is regarding the sourcing of the Soundboard prank call dispute and whether or not it should be merged into Prank call or not. Hbdragon88 believes that none of the article is sourced and hasn't been sourced in months and has deleted much of the unsourced content and later redirected it into Prank call. Kirkcliff2 believes the article contains good content that should not be deleted, and that a formal discussion needs to take place to get consensus to merge.

What would you like to change about this?

I (hbdragon88) believe that a third party needs to evaluate the sourcing of the article and whether my merger of the article was proper or improper.

How do you think we can help?

It has been difficult to really get anywhere in this discussion since I believe one thing, he believes the other, our goals are not mutually compatible, and 1-1 does not make a consensus to decide on a course of action.

Mediator notes

Administrative notes

Discussion

From my observation of the page history, I would agree that many of the assertions need to be cited as per WP:VERIFY. However, I would say that redirecting the page without bringing it to discussion first was a little extreme since the editor appeared to be making an attempt to add references to the page. I would also like to warn Hbdragon88 to be more polite about article content in the future and try to prevent something like this from happening again. I need well worded and understandable explanation from both parties to reach a judgement on this conflict. - Regards, Gaelen S.^Talk ^• ^Contribs 01:23, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm all on board for this. For my part, I maintain the fact that noone else has objected to the content of the article. I personally removed material from the "classic" version of the article as I updated it based on what I agreed was objectionable, however alot of what remained in there could be sourced, provided there's an article to source and it's not constantly being rewritten without proper consensus and what I perceived to be blatant wikilawyering. The article is one of a gray-area type in that what was stated in there anyone knowledgeable in the field of soundboard prank calls could neutrally assert to be true. If nothing else, I believe it can fall under the "ignore all rules" umbrella. Additionally, I felt as though Hbdragon88 was misinterpreting Wikipedia policies, which only further complicated the matter. This is my first ever conflict and/or edit war or even mediation session on Wikipedia and I was hoping to avoid this if possible, however such was not feasible under the circumstances. KirkCliff2 (talk) 02:53, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The revert that Gaelen cites was a lapse of judgment and I apologized to KirkCliff for not linking to the policies first. I believe that the rules WP:SPS and WP:SELFPUB are very clear here, and they should be used little and should follow the rules even more closely than more verified sources; that is, an expert in the field writing under his/her real name. KirkCliff's only reference he added [1] was a Yahoo Answers-like venue in which anyone can comment, under assumed names, and are not any sort of experts. Some areas of the Internet are simply not commented on by mainstream media. That simply means we don't cover it. I've seen it many times over; the deletion of Bash.org and QDB.us, the wars over trivial YouTube celebrities, the numerous forum accusations of plagarizing by Greg Land. I do not believe we should not use IAR to justify such material, and do not belive my beliefs on article sourcing are extreme or constitute wikilawyering. hbdragon88 (talk) 03:29, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What I am getting from both of you, and correct me if I am wrong, is that you agree that the article should be properly sourced? In addition to answering the question, give an example of what you consider to be a proper source of information since that seems to be a point of contention in this discussion. - Regards, Gaelen S.^Talk ^• ^Contribs 04:00, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The classic example would be Rickrolling, which is similar (pranking someone). It has references to the BBC, the Guardian, FOX, Los Angeles Times, etc. I did Google News, Scholar, and regular Google searches and did not find anything. The only non-download and non-video hit is eHow which is written by someone who is not an expert in the field (also it's apparently blacklisted). hbdragon88 (talk) 16:32, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It would be nice if the article was sourced, but, contrary to the beliefs of hbdragon88 - and this is part of my grievance against him - thorough citing of the article should not be a prerequisite criterion for the article's existence or even format. To take matters into your own hands, regardless of your authority level, and do away with an article's overall content as it had stood for an extended length of time and do so almost entirely simply because it's not good enough for your standards based on your potential misunderstanding of Wikipedia's article-related guidelines is an action that should not be invoked under any circumstances unless the matter had been properly addressed and a legitimate consensus had been reached regarding the direction of the article. If this sort of treatment were applied to every article that either is unreferenced or needing additional references, Wikipedia would cease to be what it is.
A sentence, or paragraph or whatever that isn't immediately cited should not be considered tantamount to being factually inaccurate or something similar thereof. In terms of references, after some heavy debating on the article's talk page and Hbdragon88 placing an ultimatum upon me to source the article or essentially kiss it goodbye, I added a reference for the part about many prank callers using Skype to call people, given that the caller can avoid having to use their actual phone number in favor of a Skype number. The reference was from a neutral complaint forum of sorts where people can openly discuss and complain about receiving harassing prank phone calls and in it many people along the way pointed out that the calls were made using Skype. I did this when I finally had the time available to do so and was intent on finding more references for the article to satisfy him. Shortly thereafter however, Hbdragon88 eliminated the article altogether, moving it to Prank Call and justifying it by saying that the reference I used was not legitimate or even third-party (at least in his mind it was) and then retroactively citing two users' opinions that the article should be deleted that were from several months prior when Hbdragon88 had reduced the article to a Microstub at best as his "consensus". KirkCliff2 (talk) 17:26, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Part of why people find Wikipedia so unreliable is the lack of sourcing, the articles make claims and the text stands there for a long amount of time, right or wrong. In that time, people scrape the article text and spread it around the Internet, thus even if the factual error is finally corrected, the mistake lives for a long time on Wikipedia mirrors, possibly even forever. This is why Wikipedia should be hyper-vigilent in demanding sources for everything, and especially for BLPs, but everything in general.
My earliest comment on your talk page suggested making a WP:SANDBOX draft in your userspace for information, so that when enough sources are found, the article could then be recreated. However, as I've just stated earlier, no apparent good sources exist for this specific kind of prank call. hbdragon88 (talk) 19:11, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If I understand Hbdragon88, he never intended to permanently delete your article, he only intended to temporarily redirect until it was better sourced. The redirect probably should have been discussed on the talk page first because it is a major edit, but according to WP:CITE, any piece of information that is a claim and is not common knowledge needs to be supported and a good bit of the article fits under that category. I think the best thing for both of you to do at this point is to try to discuss a compromise for the sourcing of the article because it will not be able to survive on mainspace otherwise. While doing so I think it would be best if both of you kept the dialog strictly professional and avoid personal comments. - Regards, Gaelen S.^Talk ^• ^Contribs 23:30, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I reiterate my point that anyone even remotely familiar with the trade could tell you that the article's content is at the very least common knowledge and not "claims" as you infer. If you actually studied the article, you'd see that everything in there is pretty much straightforward stuff. Anyone who's listened to soundboard pranks since the early days can tell you it started with Arnold Schwarzenegger. Anyone who watches victim prank videos on YouTube can tell you who's popular and who's not and how the domino effect (i.e. one victim soundboard is used to prank someone else who eventually becomes their own soundboard, ad infinitum) is a large part of how it is all done. As per the redirect, he never made any indication that the redirect was temporary and for what it's worth, his talk page shows that he's irked quite a few people with his editing. I've never had en edit war before this, but that's because I've never really had to be in this situation before, and you didn't acknowledge my previous statement about how right after I added a reference most people would consider reliable for the context it was used in, he went and redirected the article. You have also neglected to address my concern he was misusing and/or misinterpreting Wikipedia policies as part of his argument. And for the record, last I checked, there were roughly 200,000 other unreferenced articles on Wikipedia that are allowed to remain standing and many times they're eventually referenced and such is what I had begun to do but got cut short by Hbdragon88 because he didn't approve of my methods. I had pointed out to him also that by him stubbing the article, his version is not any better than mine and still did not contain sources and if I'm not mistaken, it's written somewhere that if your edit does not improve upon what already exists, it should not be made. :When he stubbed it, eventually others tried to build a new article that attempted to be informative if nothing else even if it wasn't the best quality-wise. When I came back to read the article after quite a few months, I found the article was drastically different from how I remembered it. I started the talk page wondering what happened to the article, which is where Hbdragon88 stated that someone else had added more unverifiable original research and he was stubbing it again. The fact was the info of that version of the article mainly consisted of Some defining information on what a soundboard prank was and described the three most popular celebrity soundboards and the usual methods of pranking associated with each one (e.g. Arnold Schwarzenegger pranks use the identity of the film character (detective) John Kimble and Al Pacino usually features sound clips from Glengarry Glen Ross about the prank victim owing money and a Cadillac) which, while not necessarily the best-written was nonetheless grounded in fact based on the countless prank calls made over the years with said celebrity soundboards. I eventually chose to revert the article back to where it was last in good shape and in the process, addressed some subsequent, minor edits Hbdragon88 had made, such as someone not being a notable victim soundboard before he decided to take matters into his own hands and butcher the article and incite a months-long battle to retain its content which featured quite a few policies cited and several of them violated.

KirkCliff2 (talk) 15:28, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Common knowledge. No, the information in the soundboard prank call is not common knowledge, and needs citation. You've ignored the reasoning behind WP:SELFPUB, instead claiming the source was good, when you have not offered any evidence to the prove it. Wikipedia stands behind WP:V: it might be true, but unless it can be verified by a reliable source, it's not kosher for Wikipedia. Instead of providing the sources that I'm asking for, you instead devote considerable time and room to ranting about my behavior and the apparent hoping that the mediator will fix that, when (as I've already told you) mediation and the MedCab only deals with content issues, not behavior. Find the sources. Find them, and the article may be recreated. hbdragon88 (talk) 19:09, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can tell from reading the discussion between the two of you, Hbdragon88 was not engaging in wikilawyering, he was simply giving the reasons for his edits and showing that policies backed him up on that. After all, it could be argued that you were doing the same thing he was because you were presenting your own case in much the same way and using policies to back it up as well. The information in the article is not common knowledge, at least to those who are reading it to become informed on the issue of soundboard prank calling. To ever have any hope of returning to the mainspace, it needs to be cited and referenced properly. What I can do for you here is to help both of you come to some sort of compromise on the referencing of the article. I, however, cannot help you with the behavioral issues you are having, just content issues. Please try to have some sort of discussion on what can be done to improve the quality of the article rather than dwelling on past arguments. - Regards, Gaelen S.^Talk ^• ^Contribs 16:35, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have not seen any discussion on this page for some time. Is the consensus still that we try to work this issue out? - Regards, Gaelen S.^Talk ^• ^Contribs 01:41, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize for the delay. I had been busy and then ill but I'm committed to reaching a resolution on the matter. KirkCliff2 (talk) 16:59, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

By definition, wikilawyering is the bureaucratic - and possibly deliberate - misinterpretation of Wikipedia's policies to suit one's own purposes. Although not an administrator, I am well-versed in Wikipedia policies, evidently more so than Hbdragon88 as I have double-checked his cited policies countless times in our ongoing argument and they have not matched his case in alot of situations. Simply citing Wikipedia policies to build an argument is not per se Wikilawyering. As for Hbdragon88, his reasoning at times has seemed to contradict itself on my now-cluttered talk page. I still can't help but notice how many editing disputes he's been in. As for the reference I cited, it is not self-published: If it were to come from a prank call forum, yes it would be considered so. To come from an independent website which is a forum for people to discuss harassment from particular phone numbers (the Skype number 202-580-8200 being one of many reported) and is no way directly associated with the prank call community, even if the community has since gone and tainted a particular number's page, would thus disqualify it from being self-published. Make note that there are many such independent forums out there and I could cite any of them. I reiterate the fact that among the prank call community (and I don't simply refer to those who are prolific pranksters nor do I broadly allude to the casual viewer of a YouTube prank call video), but at the very least those who watch enough soundboard pranks to be familiar with the territory) the information contained in the article is common knowledge and thus why people had added it as such. You make it sound like the entire article was written by me and it wasn't. Among most Wikipedia articles, cited or not, the information is generally added by people highly familiar with the subject, is it not? Content of a speculative nature or that is flat out inaccurate is generally recognized as such and quickly removed. Hbdragon88, I highly doubt you were the only administrator to oversee the article, but you were the only editor, administrator or not, to play God with it and think you know better than everyone else and you can just do as you please, bypassing the standard procedures and rules in the process. I'm not saying that there aren't some parts of the article that could be trimmed out, but the large majority of it doesn't need to be removed because you don't approve of it. Stop bureaucratically attacking my arguments with convoluted fallacies and work with me here. KirkCliff2 (talk) 17:29, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In this case I would suggest 4 things. First, you should recreate the article in your own userspace. Second, since you were not the only editor of the article, I would suggest that you make an appeal to the other contributors to help source the information in the article that they provided. Third, I would suggest that Hbdragon88 and yourself try to discuss how you can work together to help improve the article in it's current form. Finally, once both of you believe the article is of sufficient quality, you should present it on WP:PR and explain the situation. If the community agrees that it is of acceptable quality, than you can repost it on the mainspace. If either of you have any additional ideas, feel free to propose them here. - Regards, Gaelen S.^Talk ^• ^Contribs 18:01, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As long as he insists on just downplaying my arguments, nothing can be accomplished. Might I add that as further support of my argument against him, if he had actually bothered to thoroughly read the so-called "self-published" source that is in fact an independent complaint forum, he'd see that people also complained about things like marketing scams coming from the number. This is relevant in the sense that he does not wish to comply with the norm and it's been very clear from the onset he's wikilawyering. If he really wanted to make any progress, he would've tried to make some. And do you realize what you're asking of me? How do I go and track down all the people who edited the article when I don't have any resources to begin with and even then, I'm supposed to drag other people into this dispute? I'm not one for asininities I'm afraid. Honestly, the only fair proposal in my mind would be to restore the article, albeit with a complete edit lock and maybe a couple of minor revisions and then once there's an article, people can unite to reference it by proposing references on the talk page and an administrator other than Hbdragon88, who knows what they're talking about and isn't just looking to stir controversy can add them in and work from there. As long as it's in his hands and you continue to find justifications for his actions and overlook the blatant truth, this argument will perpetuate itself for a long time. KirkCliff2 (talk) 18:50, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You've once again missed the point. The major criteria for self-published sources is that they must be an expert in their field and publish under their real name. The people in your single source are not established experts and can contribute psuedonymously. Anyone can complain and whine about things. That does not make it notable and worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia. This is something that has been repeated ad nauseam in every other Internet meme. The only articles that remain are ones sourced to major news oulets, i.e. for every O RLY? article that exists, there are 10-20 other much less significant memes that are deleted.

I did do a Google search for soundboard prank call and, as I've said earlier, there are no reliable sources at all, except for an eHow article, which is dubious due to the author not being an expert, and further it's been blacklisted on Wikipedia, suggesting the site has been used as a vehicle for spam, and even less suited to being used as a source.

I'm comfortable with the status quo. Find your sources, and the article may be recreated. The debate continues only because you insist your source is good – and have not offered anything better – and your various accusations that I am wikilawyering and committing a ton of Wikipedia sins. hbdragon88 (talk) 03:09, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]