Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2007-06-29 Pac-Man Championship Edition

Based on the continued escalation of this dispute, I do not believe JAF is willing to cooperate with this mediation process and have filed a

request for arbitration. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 20:43, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

User:KieferSkunk and User:JAF1970

What's going on?

I (KieferSkunk) made some edits to

User:KieferSkunk is constantly campaigning to change the page even though he'd agreed to a compromise. He says, "Okay", abides by the decision, then tries to foist his ideas again. It's like a brick wall. His idea that mentioning the scoring in Pac-Man somehow makes it a "strategy guide" - while adding strategy ideas of his own in past edits - is the height of hypocrisy and bossiness. JAF1970 21:36, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, I did not agree to an unconditional surrender. I agreed that JAF and SeanMooney (who JAF called for help) had some valid points, and I agreed that some of my edits were imperfect and needed refinement. I made some corrections to my own edits, and then later attempted to open up other points to further discussion. JAF has been blocking my efforts on this ever since then. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 21:40, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You've been campaigning to remove the stuff you'd attempted to remove in the first place. The issue was settled. Let it remain settled. JAF1970 21:41, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You declared the issue settled before I even had a chance to express my opinion. Now, stop arguing in here and let the mediators review the issue. You are not an impartial third party here, and neither am I. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 21:43, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Now you're claiming User:SeanMooney essentially bullied you into acquiescing? You refused to accept that the two people who'd worked longer than you on the article and are well aware of Wikipedia standards and now you're trying to usurp their reasoning with your own. Sean said: "You deleted the entire game modes/challenge modes section which is a crucial part of the game and one of the main differences in Pac-Man CE. Although you added some of it back elsewhere, it was far less informative, almost to the point of being useless. What does "Challenge Mode 2 (Dark, 10 minutes)" tell the reader? JAF's descriptions were better written and more informative to readers. My personal opinion is that the page was mostly fine before, only needing minor edits. It was not overly long and did not need very much condensing. It was formatted well and easy to read. It did not read like a game guide to me either - since the whole point of Pac-Man CE is to get the best possible score in the time limit, listing scoring details is necessary (as long as it's not overboard)." You're still trying to do it. JAF1970 21:48, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and, again, you even moved around my statements in the Talk page, as if you have unlimited privileges to do so. JAF1970 21:49, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And this "strategy guide" nonsense. I never included advice on how to play, etc. You did that. All I did was include point scoring, brief descriptions of levels. Your initial posts included the strategy stuff, with tips. So you're not exactly following what you preach. And the fact you needed what was spoken in the first place gives a clue that you understood you overstepped your boundary. JAF1970 21:29, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Two things: One, please stop quoting SeanMooney's only reply to the entire topic. I read it, I understood what he said, and I made it clear that I considered it valid while still disagreeing with parts of it. Two, please stop fixating on my initial edits - I already corrected mistakes that I made in those edits, and I never claimed that they were perfect edits. It puts you in an extremely weak position to continue to point out a person's mistakes when they have already taken steps to correct them. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 08:33, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding SeanMooney: No, I didn't claim that I was bullied by him - actually, my request for mediation was against you because I felt YOU were trying to bully me around. I acquiesced that he had valid points, and so did you; I acknowledged that I was not responding to the discussion in a constructive manner and apologized for my behavior, and I then went on to ask for discussion on specific points that I disagreed with. I never once claimed that my way was the only way, I specifically said that I wanted to hear from more people on the topic, and I felt that I'd made it as clear as possible that I would be happy to accept whatever consensus was reached.

I'd like to emphasize that I consider both SeanMooney's and your points about the PMCE content to be perfectly valid, while at the same time I disagree with some of them. By valid, I mean that you have a reason to feel the way you do about the content, and I do not have a problem with the fact that you feel that way. As a matter of opinion, I happen to have a different viewpoint, with my own reasons for seeing things that way. And, as a matter of opinion, we each believe that our opinions are "correct" - by definition, we see our own opinions as correct - otherwise, they wouldn't be our opinions. Since my opinion directly conflicts with yours, both cannot coexist at the same time. That's where consensus comes in, and that's what I've been pushing for - to see if more people agree with me, or agree with you, or perhaps a majority of people disagree with both of us and propose their own opinions.

The main thing complicating this (aside from the personal dispute between you and me) is that nobody else seems to have responded directly to the issue where consensus was requested - either because people don't care, aren't actually aware of the discussion, or are unwilling to get involved in our dispute. (That, by the way, was why I kept moving your comments out of the consensus discussion thread - I wanted to keep that open for article discussion and to keep our dispute out of it.)

A good and proper debate between us should take the form of a civil argument about, say, why the fruit table should stay vs. why it should go. I appreciate seeing you state your opinion on that matter finally, and I have replied with my counterpoint. I'd like to continue that specific discussion with you. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 09:07, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Check out Pac-Man - the fruit list is there - which includes points. Why was User:KieferSkunk trying to remove it from this article as "strategy guide" stuff? JAF1970 21:35, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here, an example Which is better?

Pac-Man CE consists of six main "challenges", each with their own unique set of mazes and time limits[5]:

• Championship Mode: Regular Pac-Man CE gameplay, with a timed limit of 5 minutes.
• Challenge Mode 1 (Patience and Reward Course): The mazes alternate between an abundance of power pellets and no power pellets. Timed limit of 10 minutes.
• Challenge Mode 2 (The Darkness Course): Only the area directly around Pac-Man and the Ghosts is visible and the maze walls are completely hidden. Timed limit of 10 minutes.
• Extra Mode 1 (The Freeway Course): Starts at near-top speed and features many long, horizontal tunnels. Timed limit of 5 minutes.
• Extra Mode 2 (The Manhattan Course): A set of mazes inspired by the streets of Manhattan. Timed limit of 10 minutes.
• Extra Mode 3 (The Overall Course): A mix of all other modes. Timed limit of 10 minutes.

Or this:

• Championship Edition (Blue, 5 minutes)
• Challenge Mode 1 (Green, 10 minutes)
• Challenge Mode 2 (Dark, 10 minutes)
• Extra Mode 1 (Light blue, 5 minutes, starts off fast)
• Extra Mode 2 (Grey, 10 minutes)
• Extra Mode 3 (Orange, 10 minutes)

Does the first version indicate "strategy guide"? Does it honestly tell people how to play? Or is it simply information that tells someone who doesn't know the game what is involved? Does the second version truly help a reader? And if you prefer the second version, why even say "Blue" or "green"? That's useless "guide" talk, isn't it?

According to Quality scale, which belongs? JAF1970 21:42, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AND NOW HE EDITS THE PAGE THE WAY HE LIKES IT BEFORE OFFICIAL ARBITRATION WAS RENDERED!!!!!!! I think this is PROOF ENOUGH of his attitude towards Wikipedia. He's right, everyone else is wrong, and he's going to do WHAT HE LIKES even before any decisions have been made. JAF1970 23:19, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As I replied to you via e-mail, JAF1970, firstly this isn't "official arbitration" - this is mediation, something quite different, which involves mutual discussion and resolution-building between parties rather than judgemental decrees. Secondarily, nobody needs permission to post on Mediation Cabal pages. However this getting at each others' throats is really not helping anything, which is something that I think we can all agree on. I humbly invite the two of you to please try and turn it down a notch, and behave with civility and respect when participating in this mediation regardless of what you feel is right or wrong. I will remove all of this discourse above shortly, as I don't really think it is getting anyone anywhere. I am currently working on analysing the situation, and will be starting the mediation process very soon. Until then, please hang on. Thank you. --

(talk) 03:29, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

The problem is he doesn't respond anymore. JAF1970 04:28, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but I don't have 24/7 to spend on Wikipedia. Like many people, I have a full-time job, a home life, a house, pets and a garden to take care of. WP is not the highest of my priorities. In this weekend's case, my mother just got married and I went to attend her wedding. I'll ask for your patience as I catch up on sleep and on the discussions taking place. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 08:35, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He's in the

Pac Man

talk page trying to get rid of the points and fruit table, etc. Let's count now:

• 1. He makes large changes, claiming he's trying to get rid of strategy guide stuff, but includes tips and hints.
• 2. He gets angry and cites policies, but when he goes for mediation, he goes ahead and changes what he likes there.
• 3. He lobbies other pages to change so he can justify changes in another. JAF1970 23:57, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I still think JAF missed the entire point of my bringing the topic up in both pages. The topic affects both pages and many other related pages, and I believe asking for consensus in both pages is appropriate. I also believe that JAF has put way too many words in my mouth and has taken my edits of "his" material way too personally. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 08:30, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification: In response to my supposedly editing the page "to my liking" before mediation had been rendered: The most recent removals of the fruit table and Xbox Live Achievements list were NOT my edits - those belonged to

CVGProj Article Guidelines Talk page that consensus had already been reached on scoring details in articles within the scope of CVGProj. He added some minor verbiage to the Guidelines page to clarify this point. In any event, I can safely say that my only involvement in that set of edits was to have pointed out PMCE as an example where I thought such extraneous details existed - he made those edits of his own accord. Just goes to show how important it is to review the edit history and make sure you have your facts straight before leveling additional accusations. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 10:18, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

Mediator(s): I am giving this dispute one more day, tops, before I escalate to a request for formal mediation, as per the conflict resolution page. I do not believe that JAF is willing to address the issue I requested mediation for (his uncivil behavior toward me, NOT the game-specific issue), and in fact since this mediation started, he has made yet another unnecessarily snide and dismissive remark about me in another non-User-space Talk page. I am getting really fed up with this. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 00:30, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You know, for someone who demands mediation, you sure do ignore the things others tell you. You request mediation - you start doing what you want before mediation. I speak with an authoritative voice on the subject of video games, having been playing them for just over 30 years (and judging by your page and your attitude, longer than you've been alive) and you've ignored everything I say. You're right, everyone else is wrong, and neither the twain shall meet. You're manipulative in extreme, trying to get people to do what you want, and basically shouting them down or tiring them so they just acqueisce because it's less trouble to. I've tried sending out an olive branch, and you accept it, then ignore it.

A table on fruit is no more a "strategy guide" than saying

Bridge or Hearts. JAF1970 01:05, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

From the Halo 3 page, look at the Iris section in this archive. I pointed out in the talk page that it was pretty, um, terrible. I tagged the article as needing cleanup, and someone else deleted that section. I think that sort of thing is what this Policy is trying to guard against. (You also might notice that even though it was in serious violation, I didn't just wipe it. First I tagged it. Then I was patient. This is an example of proper channels that I normally do. JAF1970 01:51, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What would you like to change about that?

I would like to get the issue resolved between JAF and myself so that we can work together on the wiki. I do not want to be personally attacked by someone when an edit I make is in disagreement with another person's personal view of how the article should be - instead, I'd like to be able to discuss edit issues civilly with all interested parties.

Personal attacks? User:KieferSkunk passively makes personal attacks by

• ignoring the resolutions made by the people who worked hard on the article in the first place
• moving my talk comments as if he has the right to, essentially burying my comments in older sections of the page, effectively hiding their context.

He's of a set mind that he's right, everyone else is wrong, nods his head after agreeing to a compromise, then calling me "self-promoting" (check the links on the User:KieferSkunk page) and basically trying to campaign for the very issue that was already compromised on! It's called "talking to a brick wall". What do I want? Have him stop trying to make mass changes that are simply unwarranted and unneeded, and move on. JAF1970 21:39, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia policy I go by is here. JAF1970 21:36, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As was pointed out to me, the page you linked to does not contain WP policy, but rather a guideline.

WP:NOT

is a better example of WP policy.

Also, my comment about "self-promotion" was directed at you in response to a statement you made that essentially read as "Your edit is really flawed. Mine is much better." I felt that your method of pointing out the flaws in my edit was unnecessarily self-promotional and hostile toward me, and that you could have chosen a much more neutral method. Had you made a similar edit that I felt was flawed and I felt the need to point it out, I would have said something more like "I disagree with this edit - I feel that it's too wordy and too detailed." Even though I'm essentially saying the same thing, I am neither putting you down nor trying to make myself look superior. (I'll also add that my comment toward you was made out of anger and annoyance, it was not the most constructive thing I could have said, and I apologize for the tone of the comment.)

As for self-promotion on my user page: It's my user page. What do you expect? I can do whatever I want there, so long as I don't violate WP userpage policy, of course. If people think I'm a bigot because I promote myself there, that's their prerogative, and I don't have a problem with that. But I don't engage in that sort of self-promotion outside of that space - that would be inappropriate and would not help anyone.

I take pride in my contributions to the wiki, and I don't think there's anything wrong with listing my major contributions there. Among other things, it's a good way to express to people what I'm interested in - if someone visits my userpage because they saw one of my edits or a talk-page comment, they may then follow links from there to other places on the wiki. In my experience, people often enjoy getting to know a person through their interests. Linking to my contributions is also a good way to solicit feedback - if someone disagrees with my overall style of editing, they're always welcome to comment on it on my Talk page, and I'm always open to civil discussion about it. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 08:46, 1 July 2007 (UTC)\[reply]

Just WHERE in the article does it tell a player how to play? Arcade games are all about scoring points. Taking away point references is like trying to describe American football without allowing someone to say "A touchdown scores 7 points." JAF1970 15:38, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, let's start focusing the conversations in the right place now. Now that it appears we're getting back on track about discussing the game-guide-content issue, we should move that discussion to the appropriate talk page(s). This particular page is about discussing the conflict between you and me personally - that's why I requested the mediation. (You still don't appear to have addressed my replies further up - I would really appreciate seeing you acknowledge your behavior.) — KieferSkunk (talk) — 21:12, 1 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You haven't acknowledged yours. You've been obstinate, ignoring everything I say and do. You dismiss everything I say, my research experience of this sort. Most adults get snippy when treated like this. I've tried to be nice - you don't respond to "nice". JAF1970 00:59, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, come on, JAF. If you're really so old and mature, why are you acting like a kid who won't stop screaming until he gets his way? And furthermore, why are you treating me like a kid? Do you have ANY idea how incredibly condescending almost all of your comments have been toward me?

Why did you try to shut down my call for consensus all three times I called for it? Why did you insist that I was vandalizing YOUR article, even after being told by several other users that I wasn't? Why did you think it was okay to "skim" talk articles when I directly asked you for an apology for your behavior? Why did you tell me that my opinions didn't deserve consideration? Why are you so hung up on proving yourself to be the supreme lord and master of research on a community that directly conflicts with that exact behavior? — KieferSkunk (talk) — 01:06, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and as a matter of fact, I did, in fact, apologize for getting so hot-headed several times. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 01:12, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's hard to accept apologies when you apologize then continue the behavior. JAF1970 01:12, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yes. Very difficult, indeed. Try to see it from my point of view sometime. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 01:25, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You did get a consensus in the Pac-Man CE board - you said, "Eh, not enough people". I haven't been recruiting people to plead my case. You were given a reasoned explanation, you dismissed it. JAF1970 01:14, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I still can't believe you think that you and your friend are enough to form a Wikipedia-wide consensus. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 01:23, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, we gave arguments that hold on their own. The number of people saying something hardly qualifies as a valid argument any more than everyone in the world claiming the world is flat. That's not the issue. The issue is that you've run roughshod over this issue - you beg for mediation, you go ahead and do what you want anyway one day later. I continue to debate it in the Policy page. But know this: I set for you samples of "offensive" articles like Contract bridge and American football that would be in violation of your claims. JAF1970 01:30, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, I didn't "run roughshod" over the issue. First off, you totally failed to see that I didn't make the major edit you claimed that I did, even though I pointed it out at least three times. (You owe me a direct apology for that.) Second, you were the one attempting to shut down and overrun my attempts to call for discussion and consensus in the appropriate talk pages - ESPECIALLY after you got after me in the first place about NOT discussing edits before making them in the first place. Since this debacle began, my only edits to PMCE have been for minor wording issues, not major content deletions. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 02:20, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Let's see... you call me a "self-promoter", you start mediation but ignore mediation, you campaign to get your ideas through, which locks two pages from editing, and you call me "abusive"? I don't want to say this, but most people would say you're throwing a tantrum over not getting your way. JAF1970 02:23, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since this debacle began, my only edits to PMCE have been for minor wording issues, not major content deletions. I don't see "minor" content deletion. You basically rewrote the article and removed informative tables. JAF1970 02:26, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Um... you pointed to my very first set of edits, back on June 25th, WAY before mediation was called for. You can't use that as evidence that I'm breaking mediation. When you accused me of breaking mediation, you were evidently referring to this and this edit. Go look at who made that edit and put two and two together. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 02:39, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And as for "campaigning to get my ideas through": I wouldn't have to campaign so much if you'd just let real discussion take place! — KieferSkunk (talk) — 02:39, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think if what you're looking for was an apology for feeling personally attacked, I apologized on your userpage... JAF1970 03:29, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We're making progress. I'm looking for an apology for your actions, which caused me to feel personally attacked. There's a subtle but significant difference. More about that on my userpage. (I invite mediators to review that discussion as well.) — KieferSkunk (talk) — 04:43, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"My actions"? I apologized for being brusque. If you're looking for an apology for saving the page from evisceration, no. "No" means "no". When you start talking about how, say, the description of a Donkey Kong level only needs "Board 1 consists of girders and ladders, and Donkey Kong rolls or throws barrels at the player", people who never played before won't understand what in God's name you're talking about. Is that honestly USEFUL?!?!?! And that's the purpose of an encyclopedia. You want to work on dictionary definitions? The Wiktionary awaits. JAF1970 14:12, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See, this is my point right here. You're so hell-bent on proving yourself as a "researcher", and you're so hell-bent on proving that you "saved" the article from "evisceration", that you're AVOIDING the real issue here. The real issue isn't about what goes into a video-game article. The issue is that through almost ALL of this dispute, you have been a real jerk to me, and as I pointed out early on in your Talk page, you apparently have been a jerk to quite a few other people as well. I have spent the last several days trying to get you to see how your actions have been affecting me, but every time we get close, you start going "Well, what about Donkey Kong? What about Contract Bridge? What about X, Y and Z?" WE'RE NOT IN THIS MEDIATION TO DISCUSS THOSE ARTICLES! — KieferSkunk (talk) — 16:01, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I already apologized for being brusque with you. I also told you what you did that I felt was correct. It seems like you want me to say that what I said was wrong, and I won't do that. Sorry. I don't know what you want mediation for, but trying to change my stance is not something you'll ever do. JAF1970 17:24, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Have I ever once said you had to change your stance on the video-game issue? No. I said I wanted you to stop being a jerk. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 17:38, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He won't accept apology

From User_talk:KieferSkunk:

He wants to escalate it - it's up to you. JAF1970 17:28, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Look further up in that discussion. I made it clear what I wanted him to own up to, and he has refused to do so. "Sorry you feel bad" isn't good enough - it never has been when I've used it. JAF seems to feel that he is blameless in this matter - that his only wrongdoing is being a little "brusque" in his remarks. I think he went far beyond that, and judging by some of the initial responses from mediators and other users in this matter, I'm not the only one who feels this way. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 17:36, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What you want is for me to say what I think and believe is wrong - neither you nor the rest of the world will do that. You have my apologies for my brusque response to you, you have the right to that, but you aren't going to change my opinions and what I feel just by threatening me like a cyberbully. Ain't gonna happen. JAF1970 22:45, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, JAF. Listen to me. I am not calling your opinions and stances on the article topics into question. I have said multiple times that they are valid points, they are worth considering, I have considered them and I continue to consider them. I consider them valid for reaching consensus. I don't know why you have utterly failed to grasp this concept. What I have issue with is the way you have been treating me. It's personal, JAF, whether you like it or not, and were I an admin, I would have booted you off for multiple user-conduct violations long ago. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 23:18, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your actions belie your words. You "consider" points, then twice ignore them, even under mediation. You don't want an apology, you want something else. JAF1970 23:26, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Considering your points and accepting them as valid does not mean automatically capitulating to them. That's what you wanted ME to do, by declaring the article complete and insisting that I shouldn't make any more edits to your content. You directly asked me why I couldn't leave the article alone after you'd spent so much time working on it. I tried to reason with you on that. So what does that say about this whole thing? Your opinions are gospel, and mine are expendable? That's what you're accusing me of thinking, but that is also what you, in fact, are doing to me. And you're still accusing me of deleting substantial portions of the article after mediation began, which I didn't do. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 23:30, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, burden of proof time. As a researcher, I'm sure you're perfectly up to this task, JAF. Please point out specific diffs in our conversations in which I have invalidated your points, ignored them, told you they were not worth considering, or otherwise "run roughshod" over you. Excluding my very first edits, before I ever spoke a word to you, see if you can come up with any specific examples and link to the diffs here. Perhaps I can explain in better terms at that point what was actually going on, and if indeed a misunderstanding exists there, we can work it out. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 00:27, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is MedCab going to respond to this case anymore? If not, could one of you close it? Also, can we archive the poisoning disputes on the article talk pages? Thanks. — KieferSkunk (talk) — 16:13, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mediator response

Administrative notes