Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 09:13, 1 July 2007

Misplaced Pages Mediation Cabal
Article	Pac-Man Championship Edition
Status	open
Request date	Unknown
Requesting party	Unknown
Parties involved	JAF1970 (talk · contribs)
Mediator(s)	--NicholasTurnbull
Comment	Reviewing case; beginning mediation shortly.... --NicholasTurnbull

]]

Request Information

Request for mediation between JAF1970 and KieferSkunk. We have been unable to resolve a personal dispute by standard means, and it is affecting the health of the article in which the dispute is taking place.

Who are the involved parties?

User:KieferSkunk and User:JAF1970

What's going on?

I (KieferSkunk) made some edits to Pac-Man Championship Edition that apparently stepped on the toes of JAF1970, who wrote the majority of the article's original content. JAF got after me for not asking for discussion before I made those edits. Since then, I have attempted to open up discussion leading to consensus on an edit topic, and JAF is now actively blocking discussion and personally attacking me in the article, despite my repeated requests that he take his personal dispute with me to my Talk page. He is also insisting that the article does not need any changes, and that discussion does not need to take place about the issues I have raised. I have requested help from Wikiquette alerts, but have not gotten a third-party response to the issue yet.

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)

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)

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)

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)

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 Misplaced Pages 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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:

• 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)

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 Misplaced Pages. 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)

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. --NicholasTurnbull | (talk) 03:29, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

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

I'm sorry, but I don't have 24/7 to spend on Misplaced Pages. 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)

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)

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)

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)

The Misplaced Pages policy I go by is here. JAF1970 21:36, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

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)

Mediator response

Administrative notes