Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2007-06-15 Therianthropy

Who are the involved parties?
DreamGuy / Mermaid from the Baltic Sea, Bryan Derksen, NeoFreak, Thespian

What is the involved article(s)?
Therianthropy

What's going on?
Dreamguy has very strong opinions that a link to 'WikiFur' - a Wikia wiki on the Furry and Therian Community should be removed. As such, he has been reverting any other editor who includes it. It is not an 'edit war' per se, but it's becoming problematic. Dreamguy has a confrontational attitude that is causing problems, though he absolutely seems to be of good intent. His most recent edit came with an comment that reads: OK, considering that the WP:EL guideline SPECIFICALLY SAYS NOT TO LINK TO COMPETING WIKIS this is not up for discussion). Problem is encountered because WP:EL is a guideline, and the guideline includes other wikis as, 'normally to be avoided' not *always* to be avoided.


 * Guideline does not mean "ignore whenever you want to link to an unreliable and unencyclopedic source for POV-pushing reasons" it means "this is the standard default way of doing things, so do them unless you have a really good reason. They don't have any reasons that would satisfy the goals and intent of WP:EL, and that absense in combination with it being the type of link we don;t include, makes the answer clear.

The WP:EL no longer refers to other wikis as 'comepting',
 * As already pointed out on the talk page in question, the EL page explicitly says not to link to sites that only have what the article itself would be expected to have if it because a featured article. This is the competing section. It is also listed first there. This should be clear to anyone who has read the page, and if it weren't already I had already pointed this out on the talk page, so claiming ignorance here or that the section was removed is unacceptable and deceptive (though whether they were intentionally trying to deceive others or deceived themselves already is unknown)

and the guidelines on what makes a wiki acceptable: "Links to open wikis, except those with a substantial history of stability and a substantial number of editors." Stability isn't an issue, as it is hosted on Wikia. It has existed for 2 years, and has about 100 editors, half of whom have been active in the last 20 days. This then becomes a question of 'does this prove stability? what does?'


 * Stability does not meeting hosting, it means quality of information. This one clearly does not meet that guideline by any stretch of the matter. It's people claiming they turn into wolves. This isn't like some large outside project based upon factual but trivial matters, like some big Star Trek Wiki or something. It's people who weren;t allowed to use Wikipedia to push their own POV who decided to make their own wiki and then link to themselves to try to do a run around on our quality control.

More to the point, though, the discussion about this has become rather vehement on Dreamguy's side, with comments sounding more like edicts, and his references to guidelines as if they are set in stone policies.


 * Guidelines, again, does not mean ignore at a mere whim for no reason.


 * I think you're viewing things in far too black and white a manner here. There are many shades of grey that lie between "this set of rules must be applied without exception" and "this set of rules may be freely ignored in any situation." Bryan Derksen 02:17, 16 June 2007 (UTC)\
 * To the contrary, you are the one seeing it in black and white, with the "it's only a guideline so we can ignore it" argument. My view is not that it needs to be followed 100% (as it does not say that), but merely that, as a firm guideline created over the years by a strong consensus of editors who have debated this topic in length, that it should always be followed unless there are very strong in-policy and encyclopedic reasons to do otherwise. As no such reasons exist, or have even been offered, what we need to do here is clear and unambiguous. DreamGuy 20:52, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Because the page is slightly obscure and quite vulnerable to fancruft (in point, I do believe that most external links added to this page have been rightfully removed, but a look through the edits will find NeoFreak and I do that the most often), and we both think the WikiFur entry should stay), the issue becomes that Dreamguy does not seem to be working with the other editors, and it's causing tensions for both him and other editors of the page.


 * Actually, the problem here is that the other editors are not working with the strong, overwhelming consensus of editors who created the WP:EL rules. On top of that, one of the editors in question has a long, long and proven history of wikistalking me to blind revert my edits because he was on the losing end of a strong consensus of editors who removed links to his sites on Dragon a while back and has been running around stirring up trouble recruiting editors to take his side. For the other side to be claiming that I am causing tensions is ridiculous.


 * I haven't been "recruited", and I certainly haven't been involved with anything going on at Dragon. I have therianthropy watchlisted from way back and got involved with this current dispute independently, so "wikistalking" cannot be the only explanation here. Please understand that people can honestly disagree with you without there being some underlying personal grudge or other issue. Bryan Derksen 02:17, 16 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, people certainly can. That does not change the indisputable fact, however, that "Mermaid" has shown himself to be wikistalking me and blind reverting edits on a wide number of articles, and trying to recruit others to do so. Any claims about supposed consensus must take into account that Mermaid and possibly one or two others do not have an actual opinion on this matter other than to continue to harass me. It's clear that some people are not involved in that, but they sure do take glee in assuming that the wikistalker's actions somehow validate their own opinions more than normal. DreamGuy 20:55, 16 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I intend to answer DreamGuy's accusations soon with a complete history with diff links that shows that either he is wikistalking me or that a number of wild coincidences have taken place. However, I have a job now and I can't spend as much time helping on Wikipedia as I once did. I can probably do this tomorrow or Tuesday. Sorry to make you guys wait, but I am intending to help with this and I didn't want all of you worrying whether I had blown it off. Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 16:14, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

What would you like to change about that?
This truly needs a neutral person; someone who has never touched this page (or possibly any of the other Fur pages, but that's a judgment call for the mediator) to come in and help us assess external content. This page does not need guidance as much as it needs someone with no vested interest to come in an weigh on the subject before this heads too far. I'm prepared to accept a decision either way, my concern is more with the edicts and comments that 'this is not up for discussion'; it's going to make a page that can be divisive become even moreso.
 * If you want it up for discussion, try to get enough people together to convince the people at WP:EL to change the rules. I've already explained that's what you need to do.
 * One mediator out o nowhere, especially when they can come in from nowhere and may not actually be neutral at all, has no say in such matters. You can't just turn consensus over to the whims of one editor.


 * But what I've been arguing is not that the guideline needs to be changed to allow this external link, but rather that your interpretation of how the existing guideline applies to this external link is incorrect. I believe that the link is acceptable under the current guideline, and several other involved editors apparently do too.
 * DreamGuy, I've seen your activities on various werewolf-related articles over the years and you've been a good guardian against spam and OR, but occasionally IMO you react far too strongly and stubbornly. You are just one editor yourself, as fallible as any other. Bryan Derksen 02:12, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
 * What are you talking current guideline? Do you have the mistaken notion that I am working on some out of date listing? Because I am working on what WP:EL says right now and has said for months. It is EXTREMELY CLEAR that Wikifur does not meet criteria. I mean, it's off the charts how obvious that is. If Wikifur as a minor small way off topic bizarre wiki qualifies than any wiki in the world would qualify, which clearly is the exact opposite of the intent of the rules. Recent discussion on the talk page for external links has confirmed that even extremely large and more mainstream wikis don't typically meet guidelines, so wikifur is not even in the ballpark. DreamGuy 20:49, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Alternate solution
What is being asked for here is a third opinion or an outside review of the WikiFur link. I have no problem asking for that third opinion or requesting commentary from outside. I would suggest that those avenues of approach be considered as that is just what they are there for. There is nothing here to mediate, one editor feels quite strongly one way a some others feel quite strongly another and there is not "middle ground" to be found here. The question is simple: does WIkiFur meet the standard requirements laid out in the External Links guideline? If not is there enough precedent or logical cause to provide exception to the general guidline in this situation? Yes or no, cut and dry. Everyone here has said their peace so I'd suggest getting the opinions of others through the above channels instead of sitting in a useless "mediation" calling each other names and throwing around accusations. Fair enough? NeoFreak 14:12, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
 * According to WP:3O this dispute would not qualify for listing there. WP:RFC is always a better route, because, unlike mediation, it opens things up to anyone and everyone. The mediation system here is the most completely backwards concept in all of Wikipedia dispute resolution, as it's frequently abused so that one person's view is promoted as the default consensus. I think an RFC would be better, but I certainly do not trust the person who wrote the complaint for this page to write one over there. I also think that specifically getting people from WP:EL involved is the best route, because they are the people who have more familiarity with the cause of the dispute instead of just random RFC people. And anyone who wants to be taken seriously as far as working to a good faith conclusion would have to exclude Mermaid of the Baltic Sea, based upon his editing history. He was the first person reverting me, and he has a long history of bad faith wikistalking, so unfortunately his presence colored my views of this dispute... as I expect it would have for anyone who has had to put up with him showing up out of nowhere to blind revert whole strings of unrelated changes on articles he had never edited before just to lash out at me. DreamGuy 20:46, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Administrative notes
This got moved from "open cases" back to "looking for mediator" -- that's not correct. Mediation was rejected, because mediation in general is a very un-Wikipedia to do things, and it looks like some people are purposefully trying to go to mediation to try to bypass normal ways of dealing with a conflict. Furthermore, the conflict they have is with WP:EL itself and not this article. A mediation case is incapable of invalidating the broad consensus already established there, so there's no way they can hope to use mediation to their advantage except to try to get a self-appointed mediator willing to ignore rules, much like the one who falsely declared himself moderator previously without gaining permission from all sides. There is no reasonable expectation for any good faith end result with this process. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DreamGuy (talk • contribs) 2007-06-15T23:40:06 (UTC)