User:GothicEnthusiast/2007-08-03 Gothic chess

Who are the involved parties?
Oli Filth GothicEnthusiast ZeroOne ChessHistorian

What is the involved article(s)?
GothicChess

What's going on?
Oli Filth is editing poorly, removing a vast amount of material without consensus. Oli Filth does not have a grasp of the content, its value, nor its importance, consequently, he is removing items of vital interest. Oli Filth is adding [citation needed] tags for well known facts. When citations are then provided, he moves the location of the [citation needed] tag so that the previously provided reference is no longer in the context of the new item. Oli Filth is tagging sections of the article improperly. When we point this out, he re-tags the same section(s) with a different modifier. Oli Filth has not added one thing of merit, clearly indicative of lack of knowledge or interest in the subject. After all, anybody can remove material, but few can improve on the quality of an article by improving the content in a positive fashion.

What would you like to change about that?
Several people would like Oli Filth to just move on and leave the editing to more qualified people. This page had been in existence since 2004. Within one week of Oli Filth removing stuff faster than a horror movie with a chain saw, over 56,000 characters of text appeared in the Talk pages.

Some quick background on the material.

Gothic Chess is a game similar to chess with 2 more pieces added to the game to make it more interesting. As chess gets more played out, many people are looking to this game as a suitable substitute and thoroughly enjoyable game.

Most recently, chess legend Bobby Fischer was approached to play a match with it, which was well documented and talked about a great deal in October of 2006. Also, Grandmaster Susan Polgar was photographed playing the game with the game's inventor, Ed Trice and the battle that took place over the board was a pleasure to view.

To the matter at hand:

User Oli Filth has demonstrated a repeated bias against the material being presented on the Gothic Chess page. A summary of some of his recent actions deemed inappropriate:

1. Repeatedly changing the "citation reasons" for removing one of the cornerstones of the article, the game between Susan Polgar and Ed Trice.

2. He imposes citation requests all over the article, yet he does not hold himself to the same standards when shown other articles of much lesser importance.

Evidence:

Item # 1

Kindly visit the History section at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gothic_chess&action=history and review how Oli Filth changed the tags after we discussed how his assessment of the tags was incorrect.

He changed the tags from to to  to  to

As we continue to discuss our case in the Talk section, if we don't respond to his most-recent and rapidly changing tag changes, he DELETES the article sections, as if he is the only editor of merit.

Item # 2

One of the other contributors cited 3 other chess variants, providing links, quotations, and other data directly from their respective pages, and each instance that author showed Oli Filth how much editing he would need to do to live up to his own standard based on his impositions of the Gothic Chess article. In response, Oli Filth was dismissive of these citations as evidence of his own bias against Gothic Chess.

My conclusion:

Oli Filth is a biased editor that should be blocked from editing the Gothic Chess page. Furthermore, the article section he deleted should be reinstated.

With my many thanks. ChessHistorian 16:03, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Response
I'm not sure what the format for these discussions is here, there's no obvious "how to participate in Cabal mediation discussion" link, so mediators, please reformat what I wrote if necessary.

Fumdamentally, I believe that the section in question violates WP:OR, WP:NPOV and most importantly WP:NOT. At least two of the editors supported the retention of the section have a clear conflict of interest. WP:ILIKEIT is not a valid argument for keeping material.

I believe that the section in question deserved all of the tags that User:ChessHistorian has listed above. I fully described my reasons for the addition of these tags at Talk:Gothic chess. It is true that I changed them at two points in time, this is because: (a) I didn't at first know that the and  tags existed, and (b) having all four tags displayed simultaneously would have been overkill. I realise that this was not necessarily the most appropriate way to proceed, but it certainly wasn't helped by User:GothicEnthusiast repeatedly removing tags, without explanation (for which he was eventually blocked). In any case, it in no way alters whether the section itself was appropriate or not.

The claim that I immediately deleted the sections is false. The discussion on the talk page went on for several days; no valid arguments were made as to how the section didn't violate the specified Wikipedia policies and guidelines, whereas at least two other independent editors posted arguments that supported the removal, so I removed the section.

I have at no point dismissed the validity of editing other chess articles, as claimed above. They are, however, irrelevant to this discussion. (In fact, I've been editing several chess articles recently, and have not had a chance to look at the "suggestions" listed at Talk:Gothic chess about these particular articles). It should be clear from my extended edit history that Gothic chess is by no means the first article I've added tags to or removed inappropriate sections from, not by a long stretch, so any claim that I'm somehow biased against this article is fallacious.

I'm pretty sure that this is not the channel to discuss blocking; in any case, as far as I'm aware, users cannot be banned from specific pages, only Wikipedia as a whole.

Oli Filth 16:46, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

I would like to see OliFilth removed also
I find dealing with Oli Filth very difficult. He is constantly tagging the page with citation requests, even when there is a direct link to the item in question 1 sentence away. Most recently, he wanted to know why a certain opening, named after the game's inventor, got it's name.


 * It had been referenced on the page, Oli Filth, before you removed it! See http://www.gothicchess.com/animated.html for an example of the Trice's Gambit line of play.

If all he is going to do is tag EVERY OTHER WORD for a reference, I want him removed. He obviously does not care about the game he is just trying to impose his will on something he wants no part of.

I would strongly suggest banning Oli Filth to whatever level is necessary to keep him from posting to Gothic Chess. He is an editor that thrives on his own POV and he does nothing but make trouble on the page in question

GothicEnthusiast 18:00, 3 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I am not "constantly tagging the page with citation requests", I performed one edit where I added some tags (and then reverted an unjustified removal).  None of these was where there was "direct link to the item in question 1 sentence away".  To the specific item User:GothicEnthusiast mentioned, again, that is a false claim.


 * It is true that I don't care about the game, but no more or less than I care about the subject of any article that I've edited; this is completely irrelevant. Oli Filth 18:07, 3 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I find this quest against Oli Filth futile. I've been reading the talk page of Gothic Chess for a while now and even tried participating, but GothicEnthusiast appears to be a difficult person to communicate with. If one tries to give him some constructive criticism, he constantly either forgets about it and talks about something completely unrelated or ignores the comment. He must've cited various sources at least three times to prove the existence of the Trice&mdash;Polgar game when in fact the existence was never questioned! Also, instead of just introducing sources like he did above, he starts a quest like this against another user. His edit summaries like "person who asked for this does not know how to play the game and should not be an editor" describes complete ignorance of everything that is Wikipedic &mdash; of course the article should be written for those who do not know how to play the game, too! &mdash;ZeroOne ( talk / @ ) 18:59, 3 August 2007 (UTC)


 * ZeroOne OliFilth just imposes his own version of things without consent, just inserting tags, waiting a period of time, then removing. NOTE: OliFilt ADDS NOTHING, all he does is remove, remove, remove. Well, guess what? He removes stuff I want to see, and others want to see, that is ALLOWABLE CONTENT. Ergo, the problem is, we have a bad editor. Anybody off the street I can grab can slash content and remove material. What is difficult to get is quality content. If you cannot perceive this or he cannot perceive this, just don't come back. Let us enjoy what others have done. I am a reporter by profession, and I must say, some of the prose on this page is very well written. The insistance on its removal is absurd.
 * ChessHistorian 23:15, 3 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Belive me, I have had material removed from Wikipedia that I have felt is very interesting and that I have liked a lot. Unfortunately, liking something and thinking that something is important does not automatically make in encyclopedic. Oli Filth has also proposed that the example game be transwikied into Wikibooks just like the sample chess game was, but this proposal was ignored &mdash; I don't know why.
 * Also, you should read the Verifiability policy, especially the Burden of evidence chapter. It says: "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged should be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation. The source should be cited clearly and precisely to enable readers to find the text that supports the article content in question." and "Any edit lacking a source may be removed, but editors may object if you remove material without giving them a chance to provide references." so as far as I've seen, Oli Filth has followed the policy. He did tag the parts he thought that needed sources with "" tags giving you time to find some sources and deleted the material when no sources appeared. &mdash;ZeroOne ( talk / @ ) 23:55, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

ZeroOne, I have no idea what Wikibooks is, but I followed the example from the chess page.


 * First of all, you are comparing apples to oranges.

That chess game was a fool's checkmate or some other gross abberation of quality play. It was not an important game played between two of the greatest minds to have convened to play. The Gothic Chess game between Trice and Polgar is such a game -- It has historical value independent of the moves. It is the first time that a Woman's World Champion played a variant. It was the first time that the game's inventor played a Woman Grandmaster. If any of you read the Philadelphia Inquirer you would know these facts!


 * Second of all, not only does OliFilth keep changing the tags, he keeps changing the locations of the [citation needed] remarks. Oli's objective is not to be a quality editor, he is trying to maximize disruption. I have seen the marker for the Trice's Gambit query in at least two places. Comments and links were added to the Talk page. And they were ignored! Why? When someone says: "here's a link to what you were asking" the [citation needed] item should go away. Instead, we have remarks like: "Well, I put that there because of reason X, and you supplied us with reason Y". Then, the location of the next [citation needed] is moved, so that the citation furnished no longer provides the same context. This is not how things are supposed to be! If someone supplies you with a reference, you use it, you remove your [citation needed] tag, and that should be the end of it. Unless you're a biased editor that derives some twisted form of pleasure from trying to do anything to get your [citation needed] item permanently affixed there. That's all Oli does. Does he ever admit he tagged anything inappropriately? Will he ever stop adding [citation needed] to the point the article is becoming unreadable, forcing readers to pause every half sentence to refer to something in another section of the page?

Let me put it another way -- if an editor starts removing stuff and his changes generate over 56,000 characters in the Talk pages, don't you think it's time to remove that editor??

The Gothic Chess page existed fine for years, since 2004, under the supervision of User:Andreas_Kaufmann and User:NetguruDD. Neither of these users are from the same continent as Gothic Chess so their POV was completely neutral. Then this "OliFilth" guy comes along and starts over-tagging and hacking it like it was his personal sandbox.

I'm sorry, OliFilth oversteps his bounds, and does not give people time to repond to his items since he keeps on moving/changing them, see his own admissoion above! OliFilth admits he has no interest in the game, and therein lies the conflict of interest.

OliFilth strikes me as someone who would paint over the Sistene Chapel ceiling because he can't find a reference to God actually extending his index finger in the Bible.

GothicEnthusiast 05:59, 4 August 2007 (UTC)


 * OK, now I know what you think about the game itself. Can you now respond to what I wrote about Verifiability and that Oli Filth has justifications for his deeds? There are also problems with the tone of the article &mdash; see WP:TONE. There are exclamation points, some first person pronoun and it's not businesslike with statements like "sniper-like precision". While I agree this is great for a chess magazine or a book, it is not suitable for an encyclopedia. This is related to the Trice's Gambit. It was quickly accepted that the gambit does exist and is in fact called Trice's Gambit, there's currently no question about that. The question lies within the claim that it is the "the most tactically ornate opening". It might be clear to all Gothic Chess enthusiasts but Wikipedia just cannot include such original research. If, say, GM Polgar published an article where she called Trice's Gambit the most tactically ornate opening there is, well, then the issue would be settled!
 * Also read the Wikibooks article to learn about Wikibooks. There you can, basically, go ahead and write down all your Gothic Chess knowledge and there's no one to question you about it. &mdash;ZeroOne ( talk / @ ) 15:51, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Inventor of Gothic Chess Here With My Comments
Dear Staff and Associates of Wikipedia,

If I may impart to you my viewpoint, I humbly submit the following:

I have been called no fewer than five times today by Gothic Chess aficionados that are readers (or should I say close monitors?) of the Gothic Chess page. My voicemail has old messages concerning this also. It is getting to the point where the business disruption can be quantized as a General Ledger line item.

Treat the problem at the cause, I always say. There is a short circuit approach. Disable the account of the antagonist, and you will achieve this goal. Not only will you spare us from dealing with this trouble, you will be alleviating yourselves from having to view all future complaints yet unmade regarding this individual.

With my best regards to you for this fine online reference,

GothicChessInventor 18:58, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Outside View by Boricuaeddie
Hello, guys. First, I would like to state that this is ridiculous and pointless. No single person or group of people can be "blocked" from editing a specific article. This is a wiki. Anyone can change its content, whether you like it or not. Personally, I believe that Oil Filth's actions are justified. If something is not referenced, it must be removed or, at least, tagged with fact or unreferenced. It's true that he should have tried to discuss the changes first, but you guys don't seem to be very willing to listen to reason. From WP:V: The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. I suggest unreferenced information be removed or properly tagged, any further changes be discussed with civility on the talk page, and this be closed. Yours,  Boricua  e  ddie  15:48, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Outside View by Mirage_GSM
I read through the Talk Page of the Gothic Chess article (at least those sections concerning Oli Filth). In my opinion the arguments he makes are valid and have since been seconded by Admin Isotope23. Nothing in his arguments suggests POV. The "other party" in this conflict mainly consists of GothicEnthusiast, ChessHistorian and GothicChessInventor. Simply looking at the usernames, it could be assumed, that they are slightly biased towards the topic of Gothic Chess... Also their comments in the discussion thread border on incivilty, culminating in this move to get Oli Filth banned! Finally GothicChessInventor is annoyed by constant telephone calls by Gothic Chess "aficionados" and wants the problem remedied by treating "the problem at the cause" and "(disabling) the account of the antagonist". Well, Oli Filth is certainly not the cause of the telephone calls, the "aficionados" are. --Mirage GSM 12:47, 17 August 2007 (UTC)