Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-12-23 pwn Debate Forum subsection reverting

Wikipedia Mediation Cabal
Article	Pwn
Status	closed
Request date	Unknown
Requesting party	[IdioT.SavanT.i4]
Parties involved	[IdioT.SavanT.i4], [Onorem] (with a previous revertion by coneslayer)
Mediator(s)	Squadnleedah
Comment	Closed

Mediation Case: 2006-12-23 pwn Debate Forum subsection reverting

Please observe Wikipedia: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: i4 06:06, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Where is the issue taking place?

Pwn article

Who's involved?

IdioT.SavanT.i4, Onorem

What's going on?

I added a section to the Pwn page back on 10/23/06

• coneslayer immediately reverted it and completely deleted my "Debate Forum" subsection.
• I added it back December 20th and made an explanation why I did so on the talk page.
• Onorem immediately reverted the section and destroyed it once again, then added some opinion about "venom" on the talk page.
• I left a further justification on the talk page, addressing Onorem's objection about no "sourcing" and added back the green hi-lited subsection on 12-23-06.
• Onorem immediately decided he is the final authority and reverted it out again.

I'm tired of this reversion game. I would like a neutral third party to read the discussion on the talk page near the bottom, then check my sourcing for accuracy.

• I get the impression the gamers wish to keep "Pwn" as something only they are experts at and only they have a valid opinion on.
• Should the neutral party, upon review, decide my addition has merit, I would like it put back as posted on 12-23-2006

My argument is simple. Pwned! and OWNED! have taken a new usage - different from the one gamers have for it - on debate forums. As such, I felt it deserved inclusion because, as in a dictionary, words can have alternate meanings. The use of Pwned! has taken on a different meaning in the context of heirarchial value. For gamers, Pwned is the supreme value, for debate, pwned! is the diminuative and OWNED! has become the superlative case.

Onorem has decided the support linkage I provided is not "valid". Unfortunately, with neologisms, there ARE no sources, or very few. In this case, Pwn has no historical literature or published research supporting it at all. How can it? It's a made up typo in the first place, the very definition of a neologism, in fact, the whole page is ABOUT a neologism and nothing more. The entire article is full of "citations needed" & references to "So & So Said" commentary, yet none of that stuff was taken out. Why was mine?

While I have verifiable sourcing, the main article has little/none or only supposition as a basis. To contend neologisms are not allowed as documentaton for a neologism strikes me as particularly ironic but Onorem apparently doesn't see the humor in that.

What would you like to change about that?

...I have no particular axe to grind here. If the Wiki continues to have Pwn as a page...and the gamers want to co-opt it for their own special meanings....then so be it.

My interest was in making Wiki comprehensive, not some sort of turf war. MY problem is with editors who arbitrarily decide their opinion is the only one that matters and wholesale slaughter other people's contributions with no attempt at some sort of middle ground. I would have been happy to work on a suggested reworking to fit the Debate usage in somehow, even as a small addition, (and mine wasn't all that lengthy), but neither coneslayer nor Onorem made any attempt at compromise, nor even felt it was worth a discussion. It was their way or the highway. THAT struck me as particularly UN-Wikipedian and possessory. Wikipedia is NOT their personal playground. The fact their reversions were so fast appears to illustrate they are treating the Pwn page as personal property. I question the motives of anyone who so jealously guards an article.

Would you prefer we work discreetly? If so, how can we reach you?

...I am not ashamed to have this in an open forum. I believe it should be an open addition on the talk page and hopefully, the gamers involved here can abide by a neutral decision - I certainly can.

But, if one of the mediators wishes to privately contact me, I check my email at IdioT.SavanT.i4@gmail.com weekly.

I would also request a mediator look at the character of the disputants, and their work on Wiki as well. Onorem seems to have engendered more than a little hostility around the place. I believe my own actions have been pretty well intentioned and can't remember ever acting so irresponsibly on someone else's contribution. I believe actions speak louder than words, and mine have been very civil toward other editors - which is why I'm here, instead of there, in a reversion war.

Mediator response

Hi guys,

I have to say, this is one of the stupidest articles ive come across on the Wikipedia, but mine is not decide on a pages existance. Onorem, if someone other than the usual list of editors wants to add something to the page, they have every right, however, IdioT.SavanT.i4 with an established article i suggest you ask someone on the talk page before adding something. If you get no response, go and do it, if an argument ensues do your best to state your case. Onorem, please include other editors in the editing of the page if that is their wish.

That being said, i dont think THAT page should exist, and therefore SavanT, id actually encourage you to create another page dedicated to your terminology of this word, personally, ive only seen the use of pwned as an alternative to english over the internet, OWNED! is just standard english. I strongly encourage you to start your own page and let the Wiki community decide its fate.

Squad'nLeedah 07:38, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Compromise offers

This section is for listing and discussing compromise offers.

Discussion

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.

I'd like to address a few comments made in the "What's going on?" section.

Onorem immediately reverted the section and destroyed it once again, then added some opinion about "venom" on the talk page.

My comment about venom came directly after i4's comment which ended with, "stop reverting this article to some neolithic purist gamer pissing ground where gaming and ONLY gaming references are allowed." Maybe it's just me, but that line didn't come off as friendly.

Onorem immediately decided he is the final authority and reverted it out again.

I did not remove the section this last time, Rufous did. (although I would have if he hadn't gotten to it first.)

While I have verifiable sourcing, the main article has little/none or only supposition as a basis.

The article as a whole is poorly sourced, but it does have at least one reliable source per WP:RS. Message boards are specifically not considered reliable sources, and WP:NEO specifically states that we must cite reliable secondary sources such as books and papers about the term — not books and papers that use the term. Showing the term being used on a message board seems to fail twice here.

The fact their reversions were so fast appears to illustrate they are treating the Pwn page as personal property. I question the motives of anyone who so jealously guards an article.

My reversions on the article are generally fast because it's on my watchlist as a highly vandalized article. I do play games. I don't say 'Pwn' as I think it's a stupid term. Please stop accusing me of wanting to keep it for myself.

I would also request a mediator look at the character of the disputants, and their work on Wiki as well. Onorem seems to have engendered more than a little hostility around the place.

I welcome any inquiry into my history, although I am insulted that it was requested here. Grasping at straws I guess. Yes, there has been hostility directed at me on my talk page...and my user page for that matter. Vandals, kids, and people who aren't as notable as they think they are don't like their contributions questioned. --Onorem 11:56, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Reply to mediator response

Onorem, if someone other than the usual list of editors wants to add something to the page, they have every right
Onorem, please include other editors in the editing of the page if that is their wish.

I agree, and don't believe I have any ownership issues here. I don't agree with letting editors, from the "usual list" or not, add information that doesn't come from reliable sources. If you're telling me that showing usage of a neologism on a message board qualifies as a reliable source, then I have no issue with that information being added to the article. I would still disagree with you, but I have agreed to abide by the decision made here.

If I have been wrong in this case, I would appreciate if you would point out exactly what I did that goes against Wikipedia policy. That way, I can avoid making the same mistakes in the future. I reverted an edit one time, and explained myself using WP:RS and WP:NEO, both on the article's talk page and i4's. --Onorem 11:51, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

No, a message board doesnt actually qualify as a reliable source here, but as i said, i dont think that this page needs to have information on every variation on the usage of pwned, owned or whatever, the majority of people that are net-savvy these days understand EXACTLY what is meant by pwned, however, ive never heard of it being used in any other way other than what you Onorem have suggested. I believe that the best way to deal with this is actually for SavanT to actually create a new article for his terminology, and put that to the general Wikipedia tests, if someone says it should be deleted so be it. As he said tho, neologisms by nature cannot be readily verified, so technically you cant add stuff yourself, just as he cant. Squad'nLeedah 12:00, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the quick clarification. I think I misunderstood your first response, but still would have wanted to comment on the 2 lines that I had quoted above because they are 2 things that I don't believe I have an issue with. As far as, "so technically you cant add stuff yourself," goes...I'd have to check, but I'm fairly sure that I have never added information to the Pwn article. My interest in Wikipedia is generally to remove unsourced material and revert vandalism. I don't have much time to make a positive contribution by adding material.

Thank you for your help with this case. --Onorem 12:19, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

No problem Onorem, im glad to have a happy customer for once. Please keep up the good work with your anti-vandal stuff. Good luck! Squad'nLeedah 18:13, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

• • I too, am of the opinion the page isn't really worthy of occupying the electrons it spins, however, I have never been one to destroy, only add to life. I tried to do so there, but since I have no real interest in some sort of reversion war, I'm happy to leave off and let the ones who seem to have a direction in mind for that particular page have it their way.

I won't create a new page either, that would be compounding the absurdity. Imagine Wikipedia devoting 2 pages to this damnable word. LOL

I never meant to imply one person was responsible for all the reversions, but my comments on the totality of the people doing the reversions acting in concert as a group of gamers, excluding any other usage of the term, still strikes me as a form of concerted "ownership". As such it seems to violate the very idea of the Wikipedia as I understand it, to improve upon the state of human knowledge, not to limit it. By excluding my addition, the editors have done precisely that.

I would hope, after a proper reflection, they mght see the collective wisdom in including a small mention of an alternative use but, as I said earlier, I'm done with it.

Onorem, antivandalism is a commendable thing, I have found and seen to it that some was taken care of here as well. For that I applaud your efforts. We will have to agree to disagree on this particular item I guess.

Moderator Squad'nLeedah, thank you for your time. i4 10:42, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry guys, i got a bit caught up with some uni work. Thanks all for your input, it looks like you guys have worked things out. I hope everything is now sorted, and everyone gets what they want. Feel free to come back again sometime! Case is closed! Squad'nLeedah 19:02, 9 January 2007 (UTC)