Wikipedia talk:Griefing

Vandalism

The essay was defaced on 30 June by what appeared to be some griefers/trolls. I put in a request for page semi-protection to stop vandalism. Here's the message they left behind on this talk page:

"Article is fail, Lord Wulf demands deletion- Lord Wulf"

SA forums

Two editors have objected to the mention of the Something Awful forums in this essay. I note that the context of the mention is: "where participants sometimes discuss content at Wikipedia that they find humorous and/or offensive (sometimes referred to as "wikigroaning"), there has been a growth in the number of persons who come to Wikipedia motivated by discussions at those sites." As far as I can tell, there is no disputing the accuracy of this statement. Do participants not discuss content at Wikipedia that they find humorous and/or offensive? Has no one ever come to edit Wikipedia motivated by discussions at those sites? Has there never been an instance where some of those editors have taken part in editing that falls under the topic of this page? And, while we're at it, do any editors who also contribute to SA "own" all mention of SA at Wikipedia? --Tryptofish (talk) 21:33, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't object to the inclusion of Something Awful as a place where Wikipedia is discussed, but as also noticed at the main Something Awful article, you are incredibly biased against SA because of your perceived persecution by its forum members. Thus, you rewriting this article to include a mention of SA is a clear violation of WP:NPOV, because when it comes to SA, Tryptofish, you are clearly not a neutral party. There aren't any own issues, the issue here is that you need to drop the stick against SA and quit editing about it. Your editing about fish and neurology is impressive, take a breather and put SA behind you.Zengar Zombolt (talk) 21:37, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

The problem with that argument is that it is entirely based on the editor (me), and not on the content. There is nothing POV about saying that the SA forums are "where participants sometimes discuss content at Wikipedia that they find humorous and/or offensive (sometimes referred to as "wikigroaning"), there has been a growth in the number of persons who come to Wikipedia motivated by discussions at those sites." The fact that I made the edit is not relevant, unless there is something wrong with the content. If editors cannot engage with the content, they cannot tell me to go away. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:43, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm arguing that because you have a bias you are giving undue weight to Something Awful as griefers by rewriting the entire article so you can mention them near the beginning. The way the article doesn't name specific websites now fixes that, though, so can we drop this now? Like most disputes between you and me, this is dumb and a waste of time.Zengar Zombolt (talk) 21:47, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Again, you are wrong that I made edits "so [I] can mention them near the beginning". I made edits to improve the essay, and I have improved it. It was improved with the mentions of SA and 4chan, and it's improved without them. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:00, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it is improved without them.Zengar Zombolt (talk) 22:04, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Alright, since you apparently don't agree like it seemed above, why do you think the article is improved by specifically calling out SA and 4chan?Zengar Zombolt (talk) 22:33, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

I didn't notice this here until just now. I don't much care, which is why I was ready to drop the subject. I'm confident that I've improved the essay. Accurate specific examples helped, but it still works without them. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:37, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

If you don't much care, were ready to drop the subject, and we've come to an agreement, why did you dispute that this conflict is resolved, then? Your edits are confusing.Zengar Zombolt (talk) 22:41, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

The passage really should not have been deleted. Just look at what has happened over the last 24 hours at Crucifixion in the arts. Multiple days passed with quiet at the talk page, while editors objecting to the manga material were invited to comment, then I added it, and the page remained quiet for multiple days more. Then, a post appeared at the SA forum by someone who noticed the material, and within minutes, about a half-dozen tag-team editors showed up to engage in personal attacks and edit wars. To paraphrase part of this edit summary [1], if I should decide to add it back, editors who are members of SA may be "far from neutral", and they might want to refrain from deleting it, because if it "is warranted to be [deleted], someone else will [delete] it." --Tryptofish (talk) 20:41, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

If someone unbiased wants to readd it then perhaps, but you clearly, being a party in the issue, are not unbiased. On the other hand, neither am I, but I would say I was simply returning it to the status quo. If you think it should be added, at the very least find someone else to add it. You should not be involved in it. --Golbez (talk) 21:27, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Sounds a bit like a double standard. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:29, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Sounds more like, "Someone biased did it; someone biased undid it." Status quo maintained. If I have to find someone unbiased to undo it, why didn't you have to do the same to do it? (And, I point out, I am not entirely biased in this; I did block the other chap for edit warring, and I'm certainly been far more amenable in my dealings with you than other people from SA, so it's not like it's me and SA on one side and you on the other) --Golbez (talk) 21:33, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Let's be very clear that it's absolutely true that you have, multiple times, been very helpful to me. I appreciate that. (Although the peevish comment you just left on my talk was maybe a little hasty.) My comment here was about the merits of the page content, not about you as a person, although I used your edit summary to comment upon. It's true that you have been far more reasonable than some other people from SA; it's correspondingly true that some of the other people from SA have been far less reasonable than you. And I'm not "entirely" biased either, whatever entirely really means here. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:41, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

P.S. I was prompted by this exchange to look again at the SA forum, and I observe that you are being given a bit of grief yourself over acting properly here at WP. And I see where the comment on my talk came from. So you do deserve credit for trying to do the right thing. Again, my original comment was not about you as a person. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:54, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm not really seeing any grief; disagreement, but nothing wrong with that. And they aren't disagreeing with my actions here, only with my stated support for including the Fullmetal Alchemist image box. --Golbez (talk) 22:19, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Wrestling Image

How does that have anything to do with this article?Zengar Zombolt (talk) 22:21, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

WP:Tag team. (Actually, I'm not too clear what the Gustave Dore image has to do with it either.) --Tryptofish (talk) 22:22, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that is also something that has nothing to do with this, much like the image you added. What are you trying to get at?Zengar Zombolt (talk) 22:23, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Tag team editing as a form of griefing, which it is. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:25, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

And again, a wrestling picture doesn't add anything about that to the article. I'm removing it.Zengar Zombolt (talk) 22:27, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) P.S.: It occurs to me that you might think that I was making a point following the talk above. I wasn't. I've been thinking of adding such an image, and the attention to this page reminded me to do so, but I was not trying to reflect on you. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:29, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm disappointed that you are doing so, and not because I care about the image. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:30, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

You're right that I did think it was related to the above. And honestly, I see where you're going with the joke, but it doesn't make any sense here. Why not put it on the Tag team editing article?Zengar Zombolt (talk) 22:31, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

OK, then please understand that it was not. This is hardly worth making such an issue over. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:35, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Let me know if you change your mind. If not, no harm. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:40, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

I think we need other editors opinions on this, but even after you told me it's a tag team editing joke, the placement of the image on this page doesn't make any sense to me. However, again, I think it'd be a great edit for you to make to Wikipedia:Tag_Team.Zengar Zombolt (talk) 22:42, 23 January 2010 (UTC)