Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2010-11-10/Empires (video game)
| Wikipedia Mediation Cabal | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Article | Empires (video game) |
| Status | Closed |
| Request date | 22:30, 11 November 2010 (UTC) |
| Requesting party | Mrdie (talk) |
| Comment | Filing party has withdrawn request |
Request details
[edit]I have had an interest in editing the Empires Mod article for some time. I added an unofficial fanmade newsletter to it (there was already an unofficial—though dead—link to an "Empires League" before this), but on the community forums (in a nonpublic location) there was mention of the addition of a newsletter link at the bottom of the article. An IP with no previous activity and two users (Brutos and Krenzo—who from looking at his talk page appears to have gotten into prior issues with the Wikipedia administration whom he distrusts) have banded together to remove the link without discussing it on the talk page despite my requests for such a thing. Apparently some figures who are opposed to the posting of the newsletter (which contains a lot of material unintelligible to those who don't play the game) are threatening to create a VFD page for the Wiki article if the link stays.
Where is the dispute?
[edit]The Empires Mod article.
Who is involved?
[edit]- User:Mrdie
- User:Brutos
- User:Krenzo
- User:67.161.89.57 (potentially just a one-time reverter)
What is the dispute?
[edit]For the Half-Life 2 game modification Empires Mod there has been a longrunning dispute in regards to community matters. This has spilled over somewhat on Wikipedia. I've contributed to the article a small bit before adding the newsletter, and it's clear it is the main issue.
The origins of the debate lay in differing opinions by various players of the mod and over various personalities. The newsletter is notable within the game's community and is the only one of its kind for coverage of the mod's community. I am not against its removal if it is seen as not conforming to Wiki standards, but I would like discussions to be held on it. Particularly I would like for the other side to speak about why they are reverting the link.
What would you like to change about this?
[edit]I wish to know whether the link to the newsletter should stay or be reverted. I would like to know if the opposing side has any links of their own they'd wish to share which benefit the community in their own unique way.
How do you think we can help?
[edit]I would like for a discussion to be held between both sides, mediated by the Mediation Cabal, to discuss why the link was removed (as attempts to contact the two aforementioned users by myself on and outside of Wikipedia have not been successful).