Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-03-18 t3h BEAST

Mediation: 2006-03-18 t3h BEAST
Please observe Etiquette and Talk Page Etiquette in disputes. If you submit complaints or insults your edits are likely to be removed by the mediator, any other refactoring of the mediation case by anybody but the mediator is likely to be reverted. If you are not satisfied with the mediation procedure please submit your complaints to Wikipedia talk:Mediation Cabal.

Request Information

 * Request made by: Wayetender 23:45, 18 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Where is the issue taking place?
 * In the Internet Phenomenon page and Talk:Internet_phenomenon page


 * Who's involved?
 * Myself, User:BabuBhatt, User:Wavy G, User:Hamiltonian,User:Dragoonmac, and User:monstar83457


 * What's going on?
 * monstar83457 part about t3h BEAST keeps being removed from the Internet Phenomenon page without reasoning. I have tried to provide information about t3h BEASTs notability but they fail to comment on it. More in-depth discussion can be found on the Talk page: Talk:Internet Phenomenon


 * ''What would you like to change about that?
 * monstar83457 post added back to the Internet Phenomenon page or a good reason why it should be removed.


 * If you'd prefer we work discreetly, how can we reach you?
 * You can always use my talk page.


 * Would you be willing to be a mediator yourself, and accept a mediation assignment in a different case? Sure


 * This is, following the Categorical Imperative, the idea that you might want to do
 * what you expect others to do. You don't have to, of course, that's why it's a question.

Mediator response
I'll take this one.

From what I've seen so far, it seems that the case is nothing more than simple vandalism. An anonymous editor initially added some non-notable and possibly hoax material, and it gained supprot from a small number of people, one of which most likely being the anonymous editor himself. Unless anybody has some convincing arguments, i'm going to close the case as simple vandalism.


 * FYI to all interested parties, Monster 3578 blanked out themediator's response evidenced here:

BabuBhatt 23:35, 3 April 2006 (UTC)


 * OK, i'm just going to close the case as simple vandalism, nothing more to it. If it persists, it can be reported to Vandalism In Progress. Firestorm 00:11, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Evidence
Please report evidence in this section with for misconduct and  for 3RR violations. If you need help ask a mediator or an advocate. Evidence is of limited use in mediation as the mediator has no authority. Providing some evidence may, however, be useful in making both sides act more civil. Etiquette: Although it's understandably difficult in a heated argument, if the other party is not as civil as you'd like them to be, make sure to be more civil than him or her, not less.

Compromise offers
This section is for listing and discussing compromise offers.

Comments by others
Well I'll start this section off with a kick. Firstly, although it'd be really convenient to, I do not think that User:Wayetender and User:monstar83457 are the same person. I do, however believe thqat they are in cahoots, so to speak. I honestly cannot even fathom the strangeness of the "evidence" they present. Apparently, from what I can gather from the fragmented posts, "t3h BEAST" is an Internet personality, who's well known for introducing people to Internet phenomena; his skill at certain videogames; and inventing an energy drink to "increase one's power." Unfortunately all these claims of notability are unprovable. If you google "t3h BEAST" you will get 114 results, most forum posts. In response to this User:monstar83457 informed me that "t3h BEAST" often goes by just "Beast." That's a sticky wicket, as any webpage with the word "beast" in it will show up if googled. dang. Additionally there seems to be no way to prove conclusivel that he did or didn't invent the "power increasing drink" (which from all pictures sent to us appears to be Monster: Energy drink). We've been rv'ing the posts to this because burden of proof rests on the contributor. They must prove their subject is notable, as it's near impossible to prove something like this is NN. -- Dragoonmac - If there was a problem yo I'll solve it 20:54, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

At first, I thought it was just some kid who's taking a joke way too far (I thought the calling for a 3rd party mediation was a hilarious touch). However, after reading the link he provided to his "proof" of notability, I think that he really believes he's started some kind of web phenomenon (although, I'm still not sure what it is that's supposed to be the phenomenon--something to do with an energy drink and a video game character???). I personally don't mind, however; I'm enjoying every moment of this.

In a nutshell:

An anonymous user, 132.236.155.214, (whose only two entries prior to this were adding the line, "WTF mate?" to "The Best Page in the Universe" article, and vandalizing--probably just experimenting--the "Internet Phenomenon" artcle with a one line math equation) added an entry to the "People" section consisting of: "t3h BEAST — Creator of the infamous 'Beast Drink'" to be quickly followed with the addition of "An intellectual powerhouse." It went on with more additions like that until it ended up reading:
 * t3h BEAST &mdash; Creator of the infamous 'Beast Drink' that rapidly multiply your power (for a definite amount of time) for physically demanding activities such as Russian Soccer. Currently at work making 'Beast Drink v. 1.5' that multiply your power for intellectually demanding activities (such as surfing random sites online). Widely regarded as an intellectual powerhouse. (Show some respect for His Beastliness and don't edit or delete this Holy post!!!)

Someone reverted it, and the user wrote a complaint on the talk page saying that "t3h BEAST have had a major influence on the contemporary culture and phenomenon of the internet!!". Suddenly a user named Wayetender (who had no prior editing history) popped up and readded "t3h BEAST" entry. Someone reverted it. It went on like that for a while. Suddenly another user named Monstar83457 popped up (whose only prior editing history consisted of editing the Tragic hero page, adding--*GASP*--"t3h BEAST"!) showed up out of nowhere and started adding t3h BEAST again. Then he called for 3rd party mediation, and well, here we are!

Okay, so that wasn't in a nutshell. Wavy G 02:04, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't know Wavy G, it may not have been shelled but it was a little nutty. -- Dragoonmac - If there was a problem yo I'll solve it
 * I have trouble writing anything "in a nutshell." Perhaps I should avoid using that aphorism from now on. Wavy G 06:21, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

As Dragoonmac has noted, t3h BEAST's existence and notability is unprovable. However to 'prove' implies truth, and under the Wikipedia policy the materials posted need not be proved for truthfulness, but rather verified with an outside source [1]. As stated in the policy:
 * ''As counter-intuitive as it may seem, the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth.

I believe that t3h BEAST's existence and notability is sufficiently verified from the plethora of evidence and sources provided by Wayetender and I in the discussion page [2]. Monstar83457 02:13, 21 March 2006 (UTC) 1. To substantiate or prove the truth of something
 * Monstar, go to wikitionary, in fact, I'll do it for you. Lets look up the verb verify.
 * Now by extension we can say verifiability means something is verfiable, or able to be verified, or, by definition, able to be proven.
 * Hmm... seems pretty cut and dry to me. I asked you to prove or therefore, to verify that t3h BEAST exists, and therefore merits inclusion. As I outlined above, and as Wavy G outlined above, you have failed to do that. Ergo your argument is moot, and I think I speak for all of us when I say Wu Tang Clan ain't nothing to F*** With.
 * P.S. Never play semantics with a Poli-Sci major. -- Dragoonmac - If there was a problem yo I'll solve it 03:11, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Dragoonmac, this is neither the time or place to argue with other users or twist words; This is merely a place to discuss the point at hand: (Dis)proving whether or not t3h BEAST is noteworthy. Please refrain from doing so and keep these comments as neutral as possible. Thank you. -Wayetender 21:34, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
 * You're absolutely right Wayetender, I shouldn't feed trolls. -- Dragoonmac - If there was a problem yo I'll solve it 02:26, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

How about if we re-add the T3h BEAST entry to the Internet Phenomenon page, and word it to reflect the truth of the matter:
 * T3h BEAST is an Internet Phenomenon started on March 18, 2006 by Wikipedia vandal Wayetender and his pseudonym Monstar83457, when he duped a whole bunch of people into wasting countless hours discussing it, thus making it an Internet Phenomenon.
 * See Also: Irony.

Wavy G 22:01, 21 March 2006 (UTC) While using the talk page of the article in question to solve a dispute is encouraged to involve a larger audience, feel free to discuss the case below if that is not possible. Other mediators are also encouraged to join in on the discussion as Wikipedia is based on consensus.

If that's what it takes for t3h BEAST to gain recognition then sure, I accept your proposal. While I do that agree with what it says on there it is the first small step towards enlightening the masses. One more thing, Wayetender and I are not the same person (Dragoonmac will agree). In fact, I do not even know him personally. Monstar83457 02:23, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Discussion
I, for one, have proposed a compromise by, instead of putting it in the People category, putting in a new category called 'Lesser Known Internet Phenomenon'. However, my compromise was not taken noticed of and was promptly deleted without any discussion Monstar83457 00:08, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps, compromise further by putting it in your journal or on your user page under the heading "Possible future Internet phenomena." BabuBhatt 17:33, 22 March 2006 (UTC)


 * As evidenced by Monstar83457's penchant for personal attacks, can any contributin he attempts to make to Wikipedia be taken seriously? I mean he's tryed to place statements calling me gay twice in this discussion alone. BabuBhatt 00:36, 25 March 2006 (UTC)