Wikipedia talk:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2007-03-31 I Ain't Been Shot, Mum!/Mediator Directed Discussion

This page is here so we can have a more organized discussion about what's been going on. The case page is getting rather spammy. Let's try not to let that happen here.

Please remember to sign all of your comments with four tildes (~).

From the Mediator
As you are probably aware, it isn't my job to make a judgement- only to help you folks come to a solution, or a compromise. I will not tell you whether the article is or isn't notable, unless we get to a point where Wikipedia policy is VERY clear about it (which, as of right now, it isn't- at least not clear enough that I can make that call). Keeping in mind that I am a facilitator rather than a judge, all of my questions will be A) to help me get a better understanding of the situation or B) to facilitate discussion. Some of these questions may feel like loaded questions; I assure you that this is only because emotions have been charged. I am impartial in this discussion and I do not have any particular desire to see anyone come out ahead.

In response to the requests that a mediator block Larry Dunn: it would not be appropriate for punishment to result from mediation proceedings. I am not an administrator and the purpose of this discussion is to come to a compromise. Also, Larry Dunn's behavior has thus far not violated Wikipedia policy in such a way as would allow an administrator to block him- except, perhaps, for WP:NPA violations, of which I think all parties are guilty. Feel free to ask questions about this on my talk page; I'd like to keep this particular issue out of our proceedings here.

I would also like to point out that Wikipedia policy does not prohibit people or organizations from editing articles related to them (i.e. the producer of IABSM!, in this case). However, it is STRONGLY discouraged (see this page) for reasons of bias. Even if what is written is entirely neutral and accurate, it's generally preferred that content be attributable to a published source. I realize that TooFatLardies has not been particularly active in this affair- I just wanted to explain that particular problem.

There is no process for restricting the editing of a single page to specific users. A page can either be semi-protected, or protected (see WP:RfP). A semi-protected page can only be edited by users who've been registered for a few days, and a protected page cannot be edited without administrator approval. Full protection will almost never occur except in cases of extremely persistent vandalism or a major dispute over a controversy. This is most likely not one of those situations.

I think I've cleared up some of the specifics of the mediation request and why I can't do certain things. Now, as implied by the section heading, I'd like to begin the actual mediation by asking everyone a few questions. Those of you in favor of keeping the article, I'm going to refer to you as "Jack et al." because there are so many of you. If anyone is offended by that, please let me know- I'll be glad to avoid it if necessary.

I've left space for rebuttals beneath each subheading. --Moralis (talk) 20:34, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Opening questions for Larry Dunn

 * 1) Why do you feel that the page is non-notable?
 * 2) Why do you feel that the page should be deleted? Why not put it up at WP:AfD and let the community decide?
 * 3) If the article were more heavily sourced, would you be more open to its inclusion at Wikipedia?

Opening questions for Jack et al.

 * 1) What leads you to believe that the article meets Wikipedia notability criteria?
 * 2) If asked to flesh out the article with more sources, would you be able to locate some?
 * 3) Are RPGNet and The Wargame Shed respected or major publications within the industry?

Reply about RPG.NET
I would say that there are good reasons to consider RPG.NET a significant resource. They not only get reviews from the public, they also get product from publishers which they will give to reviewers that can show skill in reviewing and knowledge of the subject (I have reviewed for RPG.Net with product supplied by them). Wargames in whatever form are suitable for RPG.Net, despite the obvious Role-playing origins of the site.

I have been involved with games publishing and RPG.Net was treated by us as a "popular magazine" Hurcheon 21:27, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Answering questions
1 - I suspect this might be the real question here - frankly I'm not sure what are Wikipedia's notability requirements. I suspect that a clear explanation would go a long ways towards settling the dispute. I think that most people have their personal notability requirements, and are viewing that as proof of notability.

2 - I would be willing to seek them out. I believe that is possible.

3 - I would support RPGnet as notable publications. The wargame "industry" is being changed by the internet and the ability to publish cheaply. The consequence is many smaller voices over a more unified presence that may have been more common even ten years ago. I would venture to add Tabletop Gaming News as another notable to me source of information about gaming.

As an aside, I suspect that part of this conflict may be over a more traditional view of the industry versus what the industry is rapidly becoming. The barriers of publishing are dropping at a dramatic rate, and the level of activity in gaming is actually pretty surprising for someone who's been playing since the early 70's. Roryhinnen 23:14, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia's notability requirements are available here. --Moralis (talk) 23:46, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

1 - This is tough question to answer. If there was a notability scale that ranged from world famous, or infamous, on one end and obscure on the other I would still have trouble pinpointing exactly where IABSM! would rest. Just because I know someone or something does not make them, or it, famous. On the other hand, not knowing something does not make it obscure. It is like comparing a Tyrannosaurus Rex and a Velociraptor. Growing up, children are always interested in the biggest, the fastest, the most unusual. In short, the "mostest". Until the movie Jurassic Park premiered, I did not even know that Velociraptors ever existed. Their existence known only to Paleontologists, their creator, and those that take an interest in such things. There are probably other people and things in Wikipedia that are mundane and obscure, but I would not blink an eye when I find them.

2 - TV and the internet have changed what we would term as a publication. There are shows like 60 Minutes, Dateline, Nightline and 20/20 that are, arguably, factual sources of information. I don't believe that a magazine must be printed on tangible media to be considered a publication. One website, MagWeb.com, is a one stop location for obtaining copies of wargaming magazines that were, and in some cases still are, printed. As long as the website was not set up with the sole purpose of promoting a single product or business I will accept the writer's opinion as one point of view.

3 - RPGnet is just one of many web publications that I would view for an opinion. Ther are plenty of other publications, in print and digital, that I would consider equal sources for information. I would recommend that Mr. Clarke submit his product to these publications so that more reviews and points of view would be available. I also believe that other publishers of wargame rules submit a page so that Wikipedia users can see what an array of choices they have available to them. - Pwillows 18:35, 12 April 2007 (UTC)