Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2009-04-22/Beyond Protocol (video game)

Where's the dispute?
All over the page.

What's the dispute?
There is a user Wyatt Riot that seems to be on a personal crusade against this page. I get the feeling he is a game developer for another company because his actions seem quite focused and bent on the removal of this page no matter how much work folks put into it.

Within a few hours of my initial rough-draft posting of the page he was already on there claiming it was not notable, and there were no references. Many folks in the gaming community then took part in creating a good neutral bias page with notable references. Many users continued to contribute and Wyatt continued to cite the game was not notable. Even the 'Category:Massively_multiplayer_online_games' picked up the game and added it to their list.

We, the editors, thought everything was resolved then shizam he's back and marked the page for deletion. Beyond Protocol is in a MMO genera that not many folks know about so it's kinda understandable. The history of MMORTS's has been limited, but very notable and important. The first such game was Mankind, followed by a few others like 10six (now project visitor), etc. Beyond Protocol takes many ideas from Mankind and extends it into a super hardcore RTS game. We the editors feel this makes the game very notable and deserves its places in the history books, aka wiki.

As recently as last night I found a great game review that was well written and super critical of the game. Overall a very negative review. I felt to keep the page as neutral as possible we need more critical info. So I added the review. But since the reviewer is not one of those super top dog's like PcGamer, IGN, etc; he deleted it.

We need help. We have 10+ editors that are either players of the game, fans of the mmorts community, or just wiki users in general helping keep the grammar correct. Wyatt needs to move on. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SirParadox (talk • contribs)

Mediator response
I have looked into this case in detail. This is the gist of it:
 * User:SirParadox, an editor who plays this game, created the article early this month (April 5th). Not long after it's creation, User:Wyatt Riot nominated it for speedy deletion under WP:N and WP:V. His nomination failed. The article is heavily tagged for improvement. Over the course of April, a group of editors (mainly User:SirParadox and User:ZyXHavocXyz) continue to contibute to the article and the tags are evetntually removed. Then on April 20th, Wyatt Riot nominates the article for deletion under WP:N and WP:V. A day later, the executive producer of Dark Sky Entertainment, James Campbell (User:AureliusBP) threatens Wyatt Riot with legal action and is blocked indefinetly from editing for making legal threats (a violation of WP:LEGAL). Now the article's deletion is being discussed, and as I said below, it looks as if this article is doomed to be deleted.

Now I have a question for the parties involved: what solution would you like for this dispute if the article happens to be kept? -- Raziel  teatime 16:51, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Second Response
Well, the AfD resulted in no consensus, which means the article stays.

I won't comment on the COI issues here, but I will say this: Any more violations of WP:LEGAL will seriously hinder any effort to resolve this dispute and may even result in the deletion of the article. So please don't do it. Please.

Having said that, it seems some reliable sources were uncovered during the AfD that could be used to build an article: An interview from IncGamers here, a review from Bright Hub here, and an article from Softpedia here. I'm not exactly sure if all of them completely meet WP:RS, but they're sure as hell a lot better then what's in being cited in the article right now (apart from the GS review).

So here's what I think should happen: All unsourced information in this article should be sourced by sources that pass WP:RS and all unverifiable information should be removed until it can be sourced. Also, no information that can't be verified must not be added to the article and external links must pass WP:EL.

Agreed? -- Raziel  teatime 14:47, 28 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment: It seems the rest of the involved party have not been active for a while. I certainly hope they will come back so we can resolve this issue. -- Raziel  teatime 20:02, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

If you agree to the mediators solution, please sign below this line

 * NOTE: If you do not agree with my solution, please give a reason why and/or what you think would be better. -- Raziel  teatime 17:07, 29 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Agree. Wyatt Riot (talk) 19:20, 28 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Agree. I decided to step away for a bit to let things cool down (and deal with RL a little). Looks like the plan is in action, and I'm fine with it.ZyXHavocXyz (talk) 16:38, 4 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Agree. SirParadox 23:18, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Discussion
Agreed. Instead of helping to forge a better article it seems most of his focus is simply on getting the page deleted. He seems to be doing so by deleting all but a few references without offering more than vague WP guides. Things seemed to be taking a turn for the better, but it's been a roller coaster with him. I don't so much want him to go away, as to contribute. I'm just not sure that that's his intent... His talk page states that he is designing a fantasy world, just after mentioning a love of role playing games, if you ask me he may have a WP:COI, on the grounds that Beyond Protocol perhaps overshadows his vision in some way. HOWEVER, that is just an opinion based on what I have seen. In any case, a mediator would be much appreciated. ZyXHavocXyz (talk) 18:04, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

I am willing to mediate this case provided this article does not get deleted. - Raziel  teatime 18:53, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, I have looked over revision history for the article in question. It's true that the article has gone under much improvement since it's beginnings (ex. compare this version with this one). However, User:Wyatt Riot makes a good point: many of the sources cited do not meet WP:RS; the only one that really does is the GameSpy review, which isn't enough for a Wikipedia article. I have searched for sources that could be used in this article, but have found no coverage from a notable publisher outside of the GameSpy review. As such, this article fails WP:N (although I don't think it fails WP:V). Sorry guys, but it looks like this article is going to be deleted. If it doesn't however, I'll still attempt to mediate this dispute. :) -- Raziel  teatime 04:03, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
 * To answer User:Onewhohascomebefore above: if the article is kept, then I think it needs to be beaten into shape. References must pass WP:RS and external links must pass WP:EL. Cleanup tags should be added to draw other experienced editors. As long as there is work being done on the article--rather than it being left for 10 days with no fundamental improvements, which is why I started the AfD process--then I'm content with it being here. The Talk page needs to be used for constructive improvement of the article (meeting WP:AGF, WP:NPA, WP:LEGAL, etc.), something that User:ZyXHavocXyz has been doing and I would like to thank him for that. As far as allegations of my own COI go, I don't see it. I idly work on a fantasy setting/website as an aid for my Dungeons & Dragons group, which bears no relation to editing articles on Wikipedia as far as I can see. A look through my contribution history will show that I definitely do nominate non-notable games for deletion (Blood Wars was the most current before this) as well as albums and random other things. My editing tendencies are clearly laid out on my User page. If someone has questions about this or believes there is a COI, I'm fine with discussing it further. Wyatt Riot (talk) 22:29, 23 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree with you. However, I don't think there are any other sources regarding this article that pass WP:RS, which is why the article will most likley be deleted. --- Raziel  teatime 17:10, 24 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Wait, why do you expect people to work on an article more often than once every 10 days? That's ridiculous. Do you suggest that we delete any article that sits idle for 10 days? As for WP:Reliable Sources, I agree that it would be nice to have something published in a physical, printed games magazine, but do we really want to limit ourselves to only what has been printed on paper? All of the externally verifiable facts in the article come from reliable third-party secondary sources, namely IGN, GameSpy, Gamers Hell, and incgamers. These are things such as the publisher, developer, etc. Facts about the content of the game are sourced from both first- and third-party sources. The first-party primary source, Dark Sky Entertainment, is included as a catch-all reference for any game features mentioned in the article but not specifically called out in other reviews. All of these sources are reliable, and relied upon. I don't see any reason to delete the article; nobody can argue that it's factually incorrect, off topic, or irrelevant. Only, it seems, that it went ten days without being edited… 64.218.48.85 (talk) 19:07, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I'd like to point out that this page is for dispute arbitration, not the Articles for Deletion, which has in the meantime been closed to no consensus (which means "keep"). I suggest focusing on the tasks at hand, which is either to agree with the proposed mediation or proposing an alternative solution if this is not acceptable. Discussion of sources should, at this stage, be brought to the article's talk page, and ideally with a clear intent to de-escalate the conflict started over 10 days ago. Cheers, --MLauba (talk) 19:27, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
 * My aim here is not to get the article deleted, it is to come up with a solution that will try to satisfy both sides while also making sure the article meets Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If you have any suggestions to help resolve the dispute, please share them with us. Thank you. -- Raziel  teatime 00:54, 3 May 2009 (UTC)