Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Gundam/Archive 1

Template:Infobox Mobile Suit
Recent Template:Infobox Mobile Suit edit war activity indicates Template:Infobox Mobile Suit should be considered within this mediation unless prior consenus is reached at Template talk:Infobox Mobile Suit. Thank you. – Conrad T. Pino 21:36, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Pre-Mediation Notes

 * Party details and relevant links:
 * Parties are asked to watch this cases' relevant pages, by clicking this link.
 * Parties can contact me, in complete confidence, using the details provided here.
 * Parties are asked to watch this cases' relevant pages, by clicking this link.
 * Parties can contact me, in complete confidence, using the details provided here.
 * Parties are asked to watch this cases' relevant pages, by clicking this link.
 * Parties can contact me, in complete confidence, using the details provided here.

Anthøny 23:47, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Mediation Issues
Before we begin Mediation, I'd like to deal with the issues raised at Requests for mediation/Gundam/Discussion, which contains discussion over issues that various Parties would like to be added to Requests for mediation/Gundam. My intention is to take each Party's comments, and put the issues they would like to be added up for discussion, where we can discuss whether or not they should be added.

I would remind Parties that the Mediation Committee does not handle Conduct disputes. Working in chronological order, the first party whose proposed issues we will discuss is, who Proposed the following:

MalikCarr 22:04, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Hostility and intimidation towards Project members and dissenting editors by User:A Man In Black. Fig.1A; Fig.2B (content in question has been removed by User:A Man In Black.)
 * Unilateral and destructive edits to articles with no advance discussion and ignorance of dissenting opinions and project consensus by User:A Man In Black. Fig.2A; Fig.2B
 * Forming "consensus" with unrelated editors in an attempt to override existing views of project members by User:A Man In Black. Fig.3A; Fig.3B
 * Blocking editors with dissenting opinions and other abuses of administrative privilege by User:A Man In Black.Fig.4
 * Destruction of images with valid fair-use rationales and significant article contribution based on questionable policy interpretation and without discussion or consensus, and recently without any policy citation or justification, by User:A Man In Black. Fig.5A; | Fig.5B (log not viewable while image still exists)
 * Refusal to acknowledge existing consensus viewpoints or debate with dissenting editors by User:A Man In Black.Fig.6
 * Tacit support of WP:POINT campaign by anonymous IPs favoring damaged revisions by User:A Man In Black. Fig.7
 * Providing "consensus" on project talk pages at block-point by User:A Man In Black.Fig.8A; Fig.8B

Parties are free to comment as they see fit. Anthøny 12:30, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I was not aware that the mediation committee did not handle topics of "conduct". It was my intention to display a broader view of the issue at hand (conduct is an important part of a dispute, if you ask me), to help give the committee a more complete vista of the thing. If that was not appropriate, then that's okay, I'll let the talk pages and edit histories of the articles in question do the speaking for me. MalikCarr 23:54, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Discussion
Would it be unreasonable to say that the above may all be Conduct issues, which the Committee does not handle? Anthøny 12:30, 4 November 2007 (UTC)


 * It is of my opinion that the issue (which as the filing party I proposed) of whether to use Infobox MS Gundam or Infobox Mobile Suit is strictly a content one. hbdragon88 23:57, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
 * The infobox dispute is just as much a matter of conduct as it is of content. MalikCarr 01:12, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
 * It seems like the only issue that can also be considered a content one and can be mediated. hbdragon88 01:31, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Can we please watch how we speak to one another? Civility is very important in Mediation, and if we can't adhere to such a simple rule, then why should we have much hope to resolve such a large conflict? Please remember to phrase your language in consideration for others.


 * Regarding the inclusion of Infobox MS Gundam and Infobox Mobile Suit in the involved articles, I assume that everybody at least agrees to that being an issue? Anthøny  17:02, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Sort of. Infobox Mobile Suit is not used in any of the articles currently being mediated because it is old and outdated, and also contains little out-of-universe information. There are current efforts underway to template the infobox Maikeru came up with (currently in use on the Zeong and Sazabi pages, and should be in use on the Mk. II's page were it not protected in the current deplorable state) here, but as of now I've just been copy-pasting it from article to article and changing the guts where appropriate. I would actually rather start removing Infobox Mobile Suit from existing articles and replacing it with the much cleaner version Maikeru created, but I have no impetus to do so as of now due to ongoing edit warring of Gundam articles I edit or create. Perhaps that can be addressed if some kind of truce is ever reached. MalikCarr 02:27, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I acutally misspoke there. The issue is not MS Gundam vs. Mobile Suit; it's whether ot use MS Gundam or a wikitable that JT and MC prefer to use. hbdragon88 06:27, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Please don't phrase it so trivially - all the editors at WP:Gundam favor it as well, or at least have preferred it to Infobox MS Gundam. As of now it is the current infobox supported by a consensus of editors who work with Gundam-related articles. MalikCarr 12:50, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Thus, we can phrase it as "Whether to use the WikiTable or Infobox MS Gundam"? However, I would remind parties that Mediation is not a substitute for a community-wide consensus-building exercise. If the community (that is, WikiProject Gundam) have reached consensus on a topic, Mediation has no power to overrule that; parties must either agree with that consensus, or challenge it at that venue, not at WP:RFM. Nevertheless, with concern to the immediate topic at hand, do parties agree to the wording of the issue being what I have just stated? Anthøny  18:35, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
 * In this case, "the project" or "the community" when used by MC or JT is "MC and JT". - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 01:52, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Now that is a blatant lie, and moreover, one that can easily be checked by a simple look at the discussion on the subject we had some months back on the WP:GUNDAM talk page. Jtrainor 02:11, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Glad to know we're still dealing in sweeping generalizations. Aside from misrepresenting my words, it's also factually incorrect; while it is true that Jtrainor and I tend to be more active than most members of the project proper, to say that we _are_ the project is an outright falsification. I entreat anyone who believes Jtrainor and I are the project to visit the WP:Gundam's project talk page and review sections concerning A Man In Black, or anything where Jtrainor or I have contributed in the first place. There -are- plenty of other active members, and uncannily, they seem to support our edits. MalikCarr 02:55, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
 * This is getting concerning. Phrases such as "blatant lie" relly don't show a willingness to co-operate with one another and work together in the interests of a compromise. You parties must put your differences aside for the moment, and take a moment to consider what's best for this article. Now, I'm going to ask this, expecting the responses will be bickering-free and civil: do we all agree on the inclusion of "Whether to use the WikiTable or Infobox MS Gundam" as an issue in this Mediation? Anthøny  17:37, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that is a topic that I believe should be pursued. MalikCarr 19:58, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Can I get input from the other parties? Anthøny  21:38, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I will affirm. hbdragon88 22:16, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

That's basically the main source of the dispute we have with AMIB; the other stuff has grown out of that. Jtrainor 00:48, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I have, again, removed a string of inter-Party arguments. Once again, does anybody object to that Issue? Anthøny  20:41, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Like I said before, its not the table in the infobox, it's the table in any form. In or out of the infobox makes as no difference. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 06:54, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Right, and we're more or less at an impasse again. MalikCarr 07:56, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
 * A Man In Black, could you tell me what Issue it is you want resolved? Anthøny  12:29, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, as far as content disputes go, I would like to see the table of armaments removed, as it is copyright violation and doesn't/can't be made to conform with WP:WAF. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 09:11, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
 * See? Impasse. MalikCarr 11:02, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

(reduce indent) Okay, so we all appear to agree. The issue of including the infobox or the table will be listed. Let's press ahead... Anthøny 12:38, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

So...
So what's going on? I was under the impression we had agreed that the dispute was over the table of weaponry, then nothing's happened since then. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 11:27, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm drafting up a statement here in wordpad. Bear with me, I plan to begin tomorrow. Anthøny  22:37, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Okie doke. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 03:17, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Mediation Stage 1
Following the preliminary discussion, I'd like to push on and get the parties to get their statements down, outlining very briefly why they take the stance regarding the inclusion of Infobox MS Gundam in the involved articles. For clarification, my interpretation of the stances is:


 * Parties who do not support the inclusion of Infobox MS Gundam:
 * Parties who support the inclusion of Infobox MS Gundam:
 * Parties who support the inclusion of Infobox MS Gundam:
 * Parties who support the inclusion of Infobox MS Gundam:

I am unsure of the stance of - I have left a note on his talk page requesting clarification, as I would like information on his position to come from him personally. Regarding agreement to the stances, I would like to point out that I have interpreted these stances from the various pre-Mediation discussions, primarily Requests for mediation/Gundam/Discussion. Since it was a simple case of lifting the facts from the posts there, I have assumed agreement to my statement of your support or opposition to the use of Infobox MS Gundam; if you do not agree, please leave a note on my talk page and I will update the above, accordingly.

Before we begin, a brief word on Party conduct during Mediation. It is essential that all parties follow to the letter WP:CIVIL, WP:AGF, et cetera. For want of a better phrase, Formal Mediation does not work as a huge inter-Party bitch fight - you must work together, and comment on content, not conduct. If a Party makes a statement you disagree with, don't pass scornful comments, such as those visible on previous discussions - the opportunity for respectful disagreement will come later, and it being present now simply hinders progress. I ask your agreement in this matter, for the sake of the Mediation's success.

Thus, let us proceed. I would ask the Parties to post a brief summary (preferably, a short paragraph at most) outlining why they choose to oppose or support the inclusion of Infobox MS Gundam (herein "The Infobox"), linking to relevant Wikipedia policies, guidelines or otherwise. For the purposes of page organisation, you may wish to use the code below, but don't fret - I'll keep things neat and tidy.

Statement by Your name
I {support/oppose} the inclusion of the infobox, because:


 * Brief summary of your reasoning, linking as much as possible.

~

Once again, comment on the advantages of the inclusion of the infobox or the inclusion of the WikiTable as appropriate, and not on the other Parties' conduct and edits. Don't hesitate to contact me if you have any queries.

Kind regards, Anthøny  19:23, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Statement by Hbdragon88
My stance is unclear because I have deliberately avoided becoming involved in the issue I presented. I thought that mediation would be much like arbitration: the user conduct issues and (more importantly) the difference beween the filing party and uninvolved ones. I guess typically the really involved parties themselves file mediation cases, and I am an anomaly.

I support the inclusion of the infobox, because I feel that the armamanets is statstical information, and Wikipedia doesn't do straight-up statistical information. For instnace, for video games, we don't publish the exact RAM or processor requirements. As comparison, none of the Pokémon species articles have in-universe information such as what species they are, height or weight, or footprint. Yu-Gi-Oh! card articles only consist of prose and have no lists (those that have it should be pruned out) I regard bullet point aramament information in the same light and think they need be phased out for more prose. hbdragon88 (talk) 02:48, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
 * If you wish to become an involved party, I am willing to respect that. Admittedly, it is more rare in Mediation than in Arbitration (for the filer to be uninvolved), but it can be accommodated. Anthøny  12:15, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Technically, not involved, but if it helps resolve this conflict, then I'll put my best foot forward. hbdragon88 (talk) 07:22, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Statement by Jtrainor
My statement is simple: I choose to follow the established consensus of WP:GUNDAM to use the infobox developed by Maikeru and MalikCarr as it is the best one for the job and doesn't violate any policies, grandstanding by other parties aside. I do not welcome anyone, admins or no, crashing into the articles WP:GUNDAM works on like a wrecking ball and changing things for no good reason. We have enough problems. Jtrainor (talk) 20:15, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Statement by MalikCarr
I'm just going to quote, a project member who has also opposed A Man In Black's edits, because despite his fragile English, he's more or less covered the topic better than I could in much fewer words:

"For WAF, it note that infobox shouldn't include info that doesn't help reader to understand subject. And as I said, as fictional weapon, method to dispose enemy is important character of weapon."

1. There is no copyright violation in using the currently-untemplated infobox created by - the information contained therein is truncated and intentionally brief, so as not to replace the market role of publications such as Gundam: The Official Guide or use of Bandai America's official Gundam website. We include that the mobile suit has a beam rifle, but not its model number, energy capacity, or that it's powered by a replaceable e-pack. We also don't include information that has no real bearing on the article's context (information that doesn't help the reader understand the subject), such as reactor output, empty weight, sensor range, armor material, etc. For an example of a "runaway infobox full of in-universe copyvio trivia", as A Man In Black has so eloquently put it whilst blocking me for "copyright infringement", I entreat anyone to examine the Japanese Wikipedia pages on any of the articles in question - they're all linked in the appropriate places - then reference the quite spartan and utilitarian infobox we have. The difference is quite obvious, and, in short, the one favored by just about everyone involved in this edit war that isn't A Man In Black "helps the reader to understand the subject" better.


 * Oh, yes, a brief rebuttal in response to "phase out in favor of more prose", the articles that are currently the subject of this edit war -have- had their weapons described textually, in much more detail in terms of creation and function. This was a flaw of the original three articles, which I have since acknowledged and repaired in the articles that are not protected until next year (for the record, A Man In Black reverts to his infobox anyway). MalikCarr (talk) 22:41, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

2. Building consensus is important to the Wikipedia project - it's the reason why we have the three revert rule and other policies designed to prevent one editor from dominating articles based on his or her own objectives, whatever they may be. If you review the history of the articles mentioned in this mediation, as well as the articles on the Gundam Mk-II and, to a lesser extent, the Zock, the result is anything but. To make the executive decision that you are right, and just about everyone else is wrong, as A Man In Black has effectively done, is not a method for achieving this goal. Jtrainor describes A Man In Black as a "wrecking ball", which I would say is kind of a harsh criticism, but isn't that far off in terms of spirit. He -has- contributed to articles (though much of what he adds is unsourced), and has made grammatical cleanups in some places, but by and large the edits he makes are unilateral and sweeping, based on his interpretation of policy. They also frequently end up with pasting a cleanup template in some form in every section of an article (sometimes two), which, in my experience, has never really fixed the problems an article allegedly has. After that, he sits on the article and reverts just about anyone who disagrees, citing every policy under the sun that somehow supports his perspective (I have only found a few that explicitly do), and accusing other editors (WP:Gundam members and non-member participants such as myself) of violating policy, copyright and article ownership (I've always found the latter accusation to be particularly ironic, but that's just my opinion). A Man In Black has violated the three-revert rule three times in less than a month, twice on the same article, and when reported in the proper channels, accuses us (by "us", I of course mean me and my many sockpuppets) of "gaming the system." What system is there to game? The system of consensus, one of the pillars of Wikipedia? I just don't buy that logic. I've tried to discuss this at length with him - talk about edits before making them, acknowledging opposing viewpoints, and building an article based on mutual cooperation and respect. His most recent response? "tl;dr", a 4chan neologism meaning "too long; didn't read." We try, very hard, to build a consensus for these articles - we collaborate, work together, and attempt to make them better. A Man In Black simply refuses to partake in this matter in a civil and reasonable fashion, and when we do get him to talk to us, it's either in revert summaries or between reverts on talk pages. Even right now, this months-long edit was has ballooned to just about every Gundam article I've edited (and one I've created), rather than letting the mediation run its course before making a decision on the matter. How can we build consensus with that manner of editing philosophy?

3. A final anecdote, I should like to make note that I believe this mediation in its current form is fundamentally flawed. I have been advised by Wikiproject members to drop out of it, but I will stick in for the time being in hopes of achieving at least some kind of understanding. As is, the current format of the mediation is a marginalizing of a much larger issue. While it is certainly verifiable that Jtrainor, A Man In Black and myself are the most active editors in this ongoing war since June, this is by no means a full list of the matter. The majority of WP:Gundam's active members, as well as a few unrelated editors (such as ) have collaborated and worked on some of the articles in question (some at my request, others of their own regard) - they don't support A Man In Black's version of the infobox, either directly (such as in L-Zwei or Kyaa the Catlord's case) or tacitly (by collaborating on my version instead of his, such as Mythsearcher or Silver Edge). However, this mediation doesn't cover any of those angles - it's made out that the only participants in this dispute are A Man In Black, Jtrainor, and myself (I'm not really sure why hbdragon is still sticking around - he's fulfilled his role as a neutral party to bring us to the debate table admirably, but isn't exactly involved in the edit war, while other editors who have been reverted by A Man In Black are excluded from the debate). Two editors reverting one is kind of a different scenario than one editor taking on a small Wikiproject more or less by himself, isn't it? My explanation of the previous is kind of a simplification of what has occurred - Wikipedia has faithfully preserved the whole expanse of this miserable edit war in page history, so feel free to review them for continuity and interjections by other parties that are since no longer part of the business at hand. MalikCarr (talk) 22:32, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Rebuttal to AMIB

 * A Rebuttal:
 * The fact that the weapons are fictional are irrelevant - it's a weapon, period, and that should be clarified accordingly.
 * Your claims of copyright violation continue to confound me, as nothing is taken verbatim from any source. If it is copyright violation to include brief notation of figures using original interpretation and wording, by that logic the prose would be violation as well. It's the same content - the former is just easier to reference quickly.
 * The numbers are not "made up" more than any other numerical designation in a fiction (such as the ages of characters, the numbering of an episode, or the total kill count of our hero) - this might have been true during the early days of Mobile Suit Gundam in 1979, before the franchise was a commercial moneytrain, but pre-production sketches showing kanji for different weapon placements say otherwise for just about every Gundam work in recent times (I'd have uploaded one such sketch of an early Psyco Gundam rendition, but I don't know the source, so I can't fair use it). Also, I'll be curious to see where -your- sources are claiming that they are "criticized by fans as being made up on the spot". I've certainly never come across such an accusation in a reliable source.
 * "added after the fact, to fill out material for supplementary guides, written by completely different authors" sounds like original research to me, and we can't be having any of that, now can we?
 * I'll be more than happy to track down quotations for specific weapons in the animation in question - that accusation is patently false in a demonstrable number of cases. Perhaps Gundam Wing and its dumb "fighting level" statistics would be, since those are downright out-of-universe classifications for fan guides (though it should be noted that a similar system used in G Gundam was referenced at least a few times as an official Gundam Fight classification), but if you're trying to apply that logic to the bulk of the Universal Century articles being debated, you're patently wrong.
 * Finally, the articles in question (along with others you insist on reverting) are not "fan guides" any more than any other fiction article is, in that they explain the appearance and function of a fictional item, before moving on to topics of cultural significance and real world impact (or at least, that's what fiction articles should do - given all the unsourced piles of garbage out there, it's a wonder you choose to war on these...). Weren't you helping with the WP:FICT rewrite? You should know that plenty well.
 * Regarding WP:WAF, I believe I've debunked your rationale for citing it appropriately, but do elaborate on why it is so relevant to the case at hand.

MalikCarr (talk) 07:37, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Statement by AMIB
These aren't weapons. They're elements of a fictional story. People keep comparing them to rifles and F-14s and whatever, but the technical trivia of real-world weapons actually do dictate their role and performance, whereas these, as elements of a fictional story, only have the role given to them by authors to serve the plot. (Note that when I remade the infobox, I removed the technical trivia and added facts like which authors and which plots.)

Indeed, often these statistics are never mentioned in the work in question. They're added after the fact, to fill out material for supplementary guides, written by completely different authors. (Indeed, these statistics are often criticized by fans as being made up on the spot.) We're not talking about a rigorous statistical model being used to derive these stats; they're imaginary numbers being applied to giant robots that fly around in space and fight with laser swords.

On top of all this, they're copyvio. We're making fan guides by copying material out of copyrighted, licensed fan guides. A measurement (or any other fact) can't be copyrighted, so such tables are uncopyrightable for real-world items, but fictional statistics aren't facts but instead copyrightable fiction.

So. Made-up numbers so important that they're only mentioned in supplementary material, copied verbatim for no concern for copyright. I don't think the consensus of two or three users on WP:GUNDAM (which is almost never as unanimous as MC claims) overrides the copyright concerns or WP:WAF. Remember, even a majority of a limited group of editors will almost never outweigh community consensus on a wider scale, as documented within policies.- A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 02:53, 29 November 2007 (UTC)