Wikipedia:Association of Members' Advocates/Requests/March 2007/Wgungfu

Case Filed On: 19:21, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedian filing request:



Other Wikipedians this pertains to:



Wikipedia pages this pertains to:



Questions:
Have you read the AMA FAQ?
 * Answer: Yes.

'''How would you describe the nature of this dispute? (policy violation, content dispute, personal attack, other)'''
 * Answer: Content dispute, unwillingness to follow encyclopedia conventions, unwillingness to compromise when given the option.

'''What methods of Dispute Resolution have you tried so far? If you can, please provide wikilinks so that the Advocate looking over this case can see what you have done.'''
 * Answer: Comprimising by working in his content.

What do you expect to get from Advocacy?
 * Answer: Neutral mediation to resolve the dispute.

Summary:
My side of the dispute is that Wikipedia, being an encyclopedia, should use standard information while making allowances for more popular (though incorrect) useage. The issue here is that a video game was defined over and over again by the courts (through industry wide cases during the 70's and 80's that tested the "industry landmark" patent RE32,282) as a device that manipulates a video signal, which is a raster defined display device. These were lawsuits regarding ownership of the patent of "video games" and as such needed to define them. The owner of the patent, Ralph Baer/Sanders, and the licensee (Magnavox) won every single case or had the other side decide to settle out of court (and pay them royalties), in each case validating their ownership and the definition (which was important to the case) and further what a "video game console" is. The issue here, and what Nandesuka wants to go by, is that "video games" as a term has taken on a broad (but improper) context in every day useage and should be treated here as such. Consoles like the Vectrex (which he used as an example) and other vector display systems have no video signal - they directly manipulate the beam instead. I have attempted to compromise by including that information in the article. Rather than get in a revert war, I prefer to have a neutral party mediate this to reach common ground.

Discussion:
It's quite a tough call here, but I think it's also important that such information be sourced as well. Then, there is no excuse to dramatically alter or remove such information. While 3RR was broken early on here, it would appear that all parties are looking to now cooperate, which should help significantly. I'd ask Nandesuka to post his side of the story here if at all possible. —Pilot guy (go around)  15:52, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, actually we already came to an agreement. Forgot this was still here, apologies and thanks for your assistance. --Marty Goldberg 17:13, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

No problem. —Pilot guy (go around)  00:00, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Followup:
When the case is finished, please take a minute to fill out the following survey:

Did you find the Advocacy process useful?
 * Answer:

Did your Advocate handle your case in an appropriate manner?
 * Answer:

On a scale of 1 (worst) to 5 (best), how polite was your Advocate?
 * Answer:

On a scale of 1 to 5, how effective do you feel your Advocate was in solving the problem?
 * Answer:

On a scale of 1 to 5, how effective do you feel the Advocacy process is altogether?
 * Answer:

If there were one thing that you would like to see different in the Advocacy process, what would it be?
 * Answer:

If you were to deal with this dispute again, what would you do differently, if anything?
 * Answer:

AMA Information
Case Status: closed

Advocate Status:
 * None assigned.