Talk:Open gaming

Talk:Open gaming/archive 1 Talk:Open gaming/archive 2

OOGL Self-Post

I have reverted repeated attempts to add a link to [1] as this is now a redirect to the personal blog of user BBLackmoor. It would appear BBlackmoor is attempting to add this link in as himself[2], anonymously[3], and as what appears to be a sock puppet[4][5]. I will continue to revert addition of this link as a primary source. --Axon 11:56, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

http://www.rpglibrary.org/oogl/oogl.htm is the only official link to the current status of the OOGL. I am not going to try and fight the lunatic fringe on the content of this article: that has proven fruitless, and two months is more than I should have spent tilting at that windmill. But I do intend to maintain a link to the correct status of the October Open Game License. That's the least I can do. As for Axon's accusations, they are, like most of what he posts on this subject, nothing more than the product of his imagination. I did forget to log in from IP 137.246.197.234, but Bblackmoor is my only Wikipedia login. -- Bblackmoor 16:08, 2005 Feb 20 (UTC)

I cannot prove that the new user's are sock puppets although they do fall under the 100-edits rule and reproduce your own edits. The link you continue to add is a self-post to your own blog - editors are not allowed to post to their own sites under the rules of Wikipedia. This is also a breach of the POV policy. I have offered to come to some sort of mediation on this, BBlackmoor, but you continue ignore this, be uncivil towards me and ignore the advice of the ArbCom team. --Axon 18:37, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

"I have offered to come to some sort of mediation on this..." (Axon) Like most of what you have posted on this subject, that is not true. I tried for two months to engage Axon in a discussion, including surveys and repeated requests for mediation: I will not waste any more time on it. As for the link Axon objects to, there is one and only one official link to the status of the October Open Game License, and if someone persists in including incorrect information in this article pertaining to the OOGL, I will make sure there is at least a link to the correct information. It would be better for open gaming and for Wikipedia if the incorrect and irrelevant information were removed from this article entirely, but that is not a fight on which I will waste any further time. If others wish to do so, of course, they have my blessing. Instructions for doing so are posted here: http://www.blackgate.net/blog/index.php?p=15. In fact, even posting this comment and the one above was an unwelcome waste of my time. I don't plan on repeating the mistake. Two months is enough. -- Bblackmoor 18:48, 2005 Feb 20 (UTC)

I don't understand: you say you will not waste any further time on this article but continue to edit it. You continue to refer to me as a liar and a lunatic and be thoroughly uncivil. Amazingly, you've even started a blog article to discredit me with advice on how to vandalise Wikipedia with reverts - I never knew I could loom so large in your own mind you would start some sort of Internet campaign against me. I have made a genuine offer to come to some sort of agreement but you continue to ignore it: do you really want to discuss this or are you going to continue this? --Axon 19:05, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

"...you say you will not waste any further time on this article but continue to edit it." This might be the first worthwhile thing you have said. Several of my friends have also said that I should just write Wikipedia off and not think about it another moment. It's difficult. But I am going to try. If my willpower holds out, this will be the last line I ever type on Wikipedia. -- Bblackmoor 03:01, 2005 Feb 21 (UTC)

As an aside, it is against Wikipedia rules to post links to your own site and your tactic of adding the link to the old OOGL site which now redirects to your personal blog is very much against Wikipedia rules. For the sake of peace I have added it as a reference to this part of the essay to back up the evidence that the OOGL has been decommisioned. --Axon 19:22, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

BBlackmoor, you have now broken the Wikipedia:Three-revert rule for this article. For the sake of peace please desist and take into consideration ArbCOm advice. --Axon 19:25, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

:Apologies, BBlackmoor has not broken the three revert rule. --Axon 19:56, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

On second thoughts... --Axon 13:39, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)

What is going on here?

It's come to the attention of the administrators that there is some sort of dispute under way, and that through frustration (whatever), certain parties are willing to bypass dispute resolution procedures (see [6]). This is a warning to those involved: anyone who follows a method of bypassing normal consensus based editing and tries to game the system will quickly either: a) find themselves blocked, or b) find this page locked until we work out what the root problem is.

You know, I don't like having to say stuff like this. But honestly, if people aren't willing to work together then we're going to have to take steps to try to sort this out! *sigh* - Ta bu shi da yu 01:37, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Well, it's still going on. Perhaps the guys involved would like to list point by point what their contentions are, and invite others (through the requests for comment page) to mediate between them? If one of you will put your list down here, I'm willing to read it, and the contrary opinions, and at least you'll have one nonpartisan opinion to use in your discussions. Drop me a note on my talkpage if you're interested in trying to resolve the issue rather than just battle it out in perpetuity. Grace Note 04:00, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

I have repeatedly been asking the anonymous user to discuss his edits, but he/she has point-blank refused to discuss anything until I am banned apparently[7]. Otherwise, I don't really understand why he/she repeatedly deletes the content in question without discussion. Once again, would the anonymous user like to raise his contentions here? Axon (talk|contribs) 11:49, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

Time to get serious

I've made a number of edits and additions to this article over the past several months. These include, but are not limited to:

• Adding several paragraphs concerning Fudge and the Fudge Legal Notice [8]
• Clarifying the distinction between the d20 license and the Open Game License, and correcting the article where it referred to one where it ought to refer to the other [9]
• Made numerous grammatical improvements (adding missing commas, adding missing words, removing redundant words, etc.) [10] [11] [12]
• Updated the Open Game License section to correct a few errors and remove unsubstantiated and highly POV editorializing [13]
• Added external links for the Fudge Legal Notice and the Open Game License
• Sorted the list of open licenses and the list of external links [14]

I think that's about it.

For reasons I will not speculate on, Axon keeps reverting these edits [15] [16] [17] [18], damaging the article in the process. I reported this behavior to Wikipedia, and was banned for my trouble, so I won't be doing that again any time soon.

However, after taking an extended break from Wikipedia, wherein I spent no more than a few minutes of my time once a month to add a paragraph here and there and revert any vandalism, I am newly inspired to give it my full attention. Ironically, you can thank Axon for that: his constant false complaints to Wikipedia [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] [26] [27] [28] [29] [30] [31] [32] [33] [34] [35] were making my semi-retirement from Wikipedia as much of a nuisance as my previous activity was. So then, why not be active? Ergo, for the foreseeable future, I'll be focusing on this and related articles, and trying to find ways to improve and expand it/them. I will be happy to discuss the content of the article with anyone who has an actual interest in improving it or adding objective, verifiable information. If Axon wants to mend his ways, stop vandalizing the article, and focus on improving it, I will even discuss it with him. Let bygones be bygones: grudges are a waste of time.

For example:

• I do not know a great deal about open gaming licenses other than the Creative Commons licneses, the GNU Free Documentation License, and the Open Gaming License (all active), and the Fudge Legal Notice and the October Open Game License (both defunct). However, if this article summarizes those five, it ought to summarize others, as well (either defunct or active). It also ought to devote similar amounts of verbiage to the active licenses, and similar amounts of verbiage to the defunct licenses.
• Speaking of which, how much detail is too much? the WotC Open Game License, for example, has it own Wikipedia article. Does this article repeat too much of that? Should some of this information be re-located to that article?
• Backing up a step, the "History" section, particularly the first two paragraphs, is meandering, and needs to be re-written. If no one does this in a reasonable timeframe, I'll do it, but for such a sweeping change I would prefer to work in collaboration with someone else who wants this article to be factual and informative.
• Backing up even further, this article currently makes a lot of vague, unsubstantiated claims and weasel words, such as:
  • "A number of primarily small game developers..."
  • "...most major RPG developers..."
  • "Critics often complained..."
  • "...the concept of the OGF, unlike the Free Software Foundation upon which it was undoubtedly based..."
  • "...the OGL was heavily criticised in some quarters..."
  • etc.

An encyclopedia article is not the place for vague, unsubstantiated claims and weasel words, nor is Wikipedia a soapbox for an editor's opinion. The article should be objective and verifiable. If citations can't be produced to support these assertions (making them detailed, verifiable claims rather than vague, unsubstantiated claims), they should be removed from the article.

"Not all information added to Wikipedia has to be from peer-reviewed journals; but strive to make sure that information is reliable and verifiable. For example, citing book, print, or reliable web resources demonstrates that the material is verifiable and is not the editor's opinion." (from Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not)

"Weasel words don't really give a neutral point of view; they just spread hearsay, or couch personal opinion in vague, indirect syntax. It's better to put a name and a face on an opinion than to assign an opinion to an anonymous source." (from Wikipedia:Avoid_weasel_terms)

Okay, that's a start. -- Bblackmoor 16:34, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

I'm glad to see you have finally decided to respond to discussion on the talk page after months of disruptive behaviour, and I'm much encouraged by this. However, I notice that, despite warnings from administrators, you continue to delete content from the article without prior discussion here and I have alerted an administrator of this.

I hope we can start a discussion without resorting to bad faith tactics such as incivility, personal attacks, incorrect accusations of vandalism, top posting comments (all new comments belong at the bottom of the talk page), etc.

While there is nothing disagreable in the content suggestions you make above (I'm ignoring the remarks you make about me - if you have any actual evidence of wrong-doing I suggest you provide evidence) for the rest of the article (GFDL, etc), I'm not sure how the rest relates to the dispute at hand and the resolution thereof. You should be making constructive remarks here. Axon (talk|contribs) 17:15, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

I have fully documented my revisions above, all of which are in accordance with Wikipedia policy (most notably the policies concerning weasel words and citations). You wanted me to be more active on this article: well, you've got your wish. If you wish to make modifications, please discuss them. Do not simply re-post your opinion in the thinly vieled guise of weasel words and vague, unsubstantiated claims. "Weasel words don't really give a neutral point of view; they just spread hearsay, or couch personal opinion in vague, indirect syntax. It's better to put a name and a face on an opinion than to assign an opinion to an anonymous source." (from Wikipedia:Avoid_weasel_terms) If you have a genuine interest in contributing to this article, then feel free to discuss your contributions here. Weasel words and vague, unsubstantiated assertions aren't going to cut it. -- Bblackmoor 17:50, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

I think you misunderstand what discussion is: you post your specific concerns, instead of vague accusations, and we discuss it untill agreement is reached. Please list exactly here what your concerns with the edits are, preferably on a line-by-line basis and we can work from that. In my mind at least, none of the above seems directly related to any of my edits. Axon (talk|contribs) 18:08, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Stop re-posting your edits without discussing them first. Post, line by line, what edits you would like to make, and I will be happy to discuss them. -- Bblackmoor 18:11, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

If you would like to detail exactly what you object to about my edits, that would be preferable. I still have no idea what exactly you object to. Axon (talk|contribs) 09:20, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

"Primarily smaller game publishers"

I made several edits this morning: for the most part these are simply corrections and additions, a slight re-write of a couple of sections to smooth out the clunky prose, and the removal of a few weasel words and one section with blatant POV (which needs to be discussed before it is posted again). None of that should prove controversial, as it's primarily clarifying or expanding upon the content rather than altering its meaning.

However, I did make one change which substantially changes the meaning of the passage: in the second paragraph, I changed "A number of primarily smaller game developers have joined the open gaming initiative..." to "A number of role-playing game developers have joined the open gaming initiative...". There are two main reasons for this. First, "game developers" is vague. Thus the change to "role-playing game developers". Second, with the exception of WotC (which is owned by Hasbro), all role-playing game publishers are "small". Thus the removal of the redundant modifier "primarily small". -- BBlackmoor ^(talk) 09:05, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

Open gaming (protected)

Bblackmoor, you've been causing trouble around this article since February. Axon is an established editor, and you have 48 edits to articles, at least under that account. That doesn't mean Axon's right, of course, but it means as an admin, I'm inclined to take him seriously, and the fact that you've gone through dispute resolution, including to the arbcom, and no one seems to agree with you reinforces that view. I'm therefore going to protect the article on Axon's version, and I'm asking you two to discuss all the issues one by one here before starting to edit again. It would also be a good idea to put up an article RfC to attract the opinions of other editors. Let me know when you'd like me to unlock the page. That goes for any other editor too. Cheers, SlimVirgin ^(talk) 11:34, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

You state that I have been disrupting that article since February 2005. That is not correct: User:Axon has been disrupting this article, dating back to December of 2004, when he began using this article as his soapbox[36]. It's unfortunate that you did not take a few minutes to read the history of the article before protecting it. Okay, let's say for sake of argument that you are just too busy to bother reading the edit history of the Open gaming article, and all you have to go on is the word of two editors. Let's suppose that you don't have the time to investigate the vandalism complaint I made against Axon -- since you obviously didn't check the facts before summarily deleting it.

Why on earth would you assume that one editor's complaints are valid and justified, and the other's are completely fabricated? Why would assume that one editor, whose only contributions to this article have been a) to revert other editor's contributions (primarily mine, but not just mine[37] [38] [39] [40]), and b) to post unsubstantiated opinion laden with weasel words?

Why would you assume that the complaints of the other editor, who has actually contributed much of the article's current content, and who has actively sought discussion on said content, are baseless?

For pete's sake, can't you exercise just a little effort before you declare that one editor's opinion should be enshrined as the incumbent version of the page? I even provided you a link to the last undisputed version[41] of the page! Do consensus, verifiability, and NPOV mean nothing to you? I am more than happy to discuss Axon's edits -- but you'll note that he doesn't discuss them. He has never discussed them, and you people do not do anything about it! That's part of why I took a break from Wikipedia for so long, out of frustration and disgust (other than taking a few minutes once a month to revert Axon's latest vandalism [42]). Of course, once I was no longer actively participating in Wikipedia, Axon was free to claim all kinds of things without fear of anyone contradicting him. It's easy to claim that you want to discuss things when no one is around to take you up on the offer (I won't even address his other slanders during that time, all of which you appear to have taken at face value). You'll note that he still isn't actually discussing anything. What he does (which seems to work quite well) is "contribute" his unsubstantiated opinion, and then complain to you when anyone else makes any edits at all. And, incredibly, this tactic works, because you are either too busy or too indifferent to check the facts.

Will you READ the edit history of the page before giving preferencial treatment to one editor's unsubstantiated opinion? Or if that is simply too time consuming, at least read the section on the Talk page titled "Time to get serious" (which gives a brief overview of the current status of the Open gaming article)? PLEASE? -- BBlackmoor ^(talk) 17:27, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

I'm afraid I don't understand the issues, so I can't help to sort out the content dispute. What I suggest is that someone puts up an article RfC, or posts to the mailing list asking for input from other editors who know something about this area. The reason I favored Axon's version, Bblackmoor, is that you've made very few edits to articles, and Axon is an established editor. Also, you filed what appeared to be a malicious, or at least wrong-headed, vandalism report, and you've been personally attacking him, calling him a net loon and vandal. All this puts you in the wrong, I'm afraid, in terms of our policies. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 16:54, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

If you'd been dealing with him as long as I have, without any help from Wikipedia at all, you'd be calling him much worse than that. But you'll not need to worry on that account, because you refuse to read the page you've protected, nor the Talk page, nor even check the citations where I give you easy, one-click links to Axon's edit history. Any editor can recognize weasel words: you don't need to know "the issues" to spot them. Any editor can choose to protect an undisputed version of a page rather than being completely snowed by an editor who has never discussed their edits despite MONTHS of outright begging that he do so, but who is obviously better at "playing the system" than I am. Is it any wonder that I'm frustrated? -- BBlackmoor ^(talk) 17:01, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

How can you call your version undisputed? It is being disputed by an established editor. I've put up a Request for Comment at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Other, though I've no idea whether it will get a response. Bblackmoor, can you explain why you're so angry about this and why it matters to you so much? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 18:40, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

"How can you call your version undisputed?" Oh. My. God. The undisputed version -- for which I've given you the link at least THREE TIMES (make it four now[43]) -- was from a completely different user, predating all of this. Not only have you not read the page you're making decisions about, or the Talk page where most of this has been explained in detail over and again, you don't even read the Talk comments that you're replying to! AAAAAAAAAAAAARRGH! -- BBlackmoor ^(talk) 18:58, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

Sorry about that BB. Some of your comments have been so long that I've only scanned them to be honest. I'll take a look at that version when I can, but WP is very slow today. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:36, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

I think the above is misleading: it's true the version BB reverts to is someone else's version, but only because that is the last version of the article that deletes my own edits. Otherwise, BB is reverting to an old version of the October Open Gaming License section: there is no real dispute with any other part of the article. Axon (talk|contribs) 09:24, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Don't feel bad, Slim; I've been trying to get a sense of what the conflict is on this page all week. BB and Axon are throwing a lot of policy and copyedit accusations at each other.... and that seems to be at a complete disconnect from the actual edit-war going on in the article... which appears to be a content issue. And I can't figure out what the content issue... is... exactly. One person seems to want to discuss the OOGL and maybe some criticism of it? And the other wants to remove it and/or whitewash? I think Axon is the inclusixe and BB the removal party, but I lose track since the talk discussion has nothing to do with anything.

...At this point, I think I'm just talking to myself... and indulging my love of the ellipses.

Fox1 19:59, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

That would be an accurate assessment, Fox1. Axon (talk|contribs) 09:24, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Ok, I don't mind protecting on the 16:01 December 2, 2004 version as BB suggested, if Axon agrees. Axon, what do you think? Fox1, thanks, and I think your ellipses are very nice. I can see why you love them. ;-) SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:16, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

Hi SV, I would politely disgree that we protect on the December 2 version: BB's long-term objective here is to remove and whitewash all mention of the OOGL from Wikipedia so an older version before the OOGL edits would, effectively, be a version preferable to him and that is disputed by me, IMHO. I would ask we protect on the current version as-is so that BB is at least motivated to give discussion on the talk page with me a fair chance. Otherwise, I feel that it would be rewarding BB's flouting of Wikipedia policy (both the spirit and letter, which he has previously flouted and now ironically rule lawyers over) for which he has been successfully blocked twice and punish me for abiding by Wikipedia policy. Axon (talk|contribs) 09:16, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Statements by both parties

Okay, deep breath... I'll try to hit the high spots for people who came in late. Maybe someone will go to the trouble of reading it and clicking the reference links.

Once upon a time, the Open gaming article looked like this[44]. Axon thought that it was a good idea to devote most of the article to his criticisms of a license which had, at that time, not been used for around two years[45]. Some of what he posted was factual; some was not. Initially, I thought that this was a waste of time and undermined the value of the article. As a result of the RfC (which I requested), I changed my mind, and decided that it was a worthwhile footnote in the history of "open gaming". To that end, and in accordance with what little community response there was (Axon himself refusing to discuss anything), I added factual details to the section on the OOGL, and removed the unsubstantiated opinion and weasel words which Axon had contributed. He would immediately delete verifiable facts and replace them with weasel words and assertions.

This continued interminably. I requested assistance from Wikipedia (in the form of surveys, an RFC, and a Request For Arbitration), and, much like now, no one could be bothered to review the facts before taking action. Axon's efforts were more effective than mine: he refrained participating in any discussion, and sabotaged what little discussion there was. He was also more patient, and that patience was rewarded: I eventually gave up in frustration, and swore off Wikipedia for a number of months. In my absence, he said a lot of things, not all of which were true. About once a month I would take a minute or two to revert Axon's vandalism, and he would promptly add it again, even going so far as reverting corrections to spelling and grammar[46] [47] [48] [49]. That was the state of things throughout the spring and summer of 2005.

Now, in October 2005, I have decided to become an active editor again[50]. In that vein, I posted a pretty thorough review of my previous edits of the Open gaming article, along with what I consider to be reasonable plans for its future development[51]. I invited any and all interested parties, including Axon, to participate. As before, Axon has yet to discuss anything. -- BBlackmoor ^(talk) 21:41, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

The above is incomplete: you have failed to mention the bad faith tactics you have indulged in, thepersonal attacks[52][53], the meat pupetting[54][55] and the other tactics. I would also note that I have made several efforts to discuss the above with you[56][57][58]. If you can't even admit that much, I don't know what else we can do. Axon (talk|contribs) 09:18, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

To summarise: the dispute revolves around the October Open Gaming License with is authored by the BB. BB's objective is to delete and remove all mention of it, and get me banned in the process[59] for the trouble of mentioning it in the article. Originally, he deleted the content without discussion with me and has had a history of refusing to discuss content on this topic, preferring to rules lawyer in this area. Whilst he did indeed start the dispute resolution process, it was peppered with personal attacks and bad faith tactics such as incivility, top posting, threats that I would be banned and other such tactics and effectively side-lined me from the process. Regardless, the RfC was far from inconclusive, as BB has suggested, and in fact conclusively found in favour of keeping the section on the OOGL.

However, When he realised that he could not force me to compromise without compromising himself (i.e. treating me with civility and discussing the content reasonably) BB started an abortive RfAr against me which demonstrably failed because the ArbCom felt, similarly, that he had not properly attempted dispute resolution. His tactics since then have been far worse as I have highlighted to SV and, as we can see from the "Time to get serious" section above, he continues to flip-flop on actually highlighting what content exactly he objects to. Axon (talk|contribs) 09:32, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

I would also like to note that BB has since been editing my user pages[60]. Although he did subsequently revert his changes, I can't help feeling this is yet more evidence of his inability to work in a civil manner. Axon (talk|contribs) 09:47, 10 October 2005 (UTC)