Wikipedia talk:Mediation Cabal/Cases/28 July 2011/Games for Windows

Acceptance of Mediation
Do interested parties agree to accept WesleyMouse as your mediator? (please sign your response)
 * Second proceeding
 * Decline. Sorry, but this is not personal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FleetCommand (talk • contribs)
 * Accept — Preceding unsigned comment added by VividNinjaScar (talk • contribs)

What is the dispute?
This is probably the most peaceful case ever: I simply want three additional input from three different Wikipedians into the matter. (More than three is also good.) I could call three friends of mine but the would not be neutral, would it? Especially, since I'd rather have consensus instead of vote. This place seemed to most suitable place.

The dispute is this: I propose that the infobox link to the Games For Windows website, as Manual of Style (Computing) suggests, should be gamesforwindows.com instead of the current marketplace.xbox.com/PC – or at least the former should also be included along the latter. The reason is simple: Ease of memorizing the link! It is easier to remember that Games for Windows is available at GamesForWindows.com instead of "market place dot ecks box dot com slash pi si".

What would you like to change about this?
I prefer having three additional inputs, detailing whether my proposition is good or bad. (Or perhaps propose a third course of action.) That's all. I believe there are more than three mediators attending to this area, so this should not be a problem.

How do you think we can help?
The mediator can supply his own input and then invite two other mediators to tag along.

Mediator notes

 * First proceeding
 * Be Bold! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xavexgoem (talk • contribs)
 * FWIW, I have provided some advice on my talk page here, which may or may not be useful. Steven Zhang  The clock is ticking....  06:30, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Seeing as XBox is just a console made by Microsoft Windows, then there isn't really a merger of sorts. It is just a case of Windows now wishing to re-brand their Xbox game software to "Games for Windows".  Even Xbox LIVE has become "Games for Windows LIVE".  So why not use the "Games for Windows" website as the article link; but also make note in the article about the re-branding (using sourced material to provide added evidence), then you may also note the old website address in the "re-branding section".  That way everyone is happy, and you're also keeping people informed of the history of the company, and their decisions to "re-brand".  Wesley Mouse (talk) 00:30, 7 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Second proceeding
 * As it is very clear that no resolution has been reached regarding this dispute, I have reopened the MedCab case, and intend to see this through in a peaceful manner. I'm willing to help you all to resolve this dispute. Please indicate whether or not you agree to my mediation in the "discussion" section below. -- Wesley Mouse (talk) 17:25, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

Administrative notes

 * First proceeding
 * The requester has had the input that they were seeking, and there has been no editing on the page for over a month, so I have closed the case. —  Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 07:17, 7 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Second proceeding
 * I have removed Wesley Mouse as mediator of this case, as after reviewing discussions both here and at FleetCommand's talk page it seems to me their input is no longer assisting this dispute. While I have been asked to mediate this, I would like the consent of the involved parties, as I have already given my opinion before. I think that a workable compromise here is unlikely, but open to forming one with parties if that is possible. Let's get agreement first, I'll go over ground rules in the morning (6.59am here). Steven Zhang  The clock is ticking....  20:59, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Discussion

 * First proceeding
 * Excellent. We have two input from two uninvolved parties. One more remains! These inputs are far more important to me than the actual thing that is placed on the article. Fleet Command (talk) 04:11, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I think this dispute is long overdue for closure. There have been no edits to the article since July 23, and no discussion on the talk page since July 25. That doesn't seem like an active dispute to me. —  Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 13:14, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I have the three inputs that I requested. I consider the request fulfilled and the case can now close down. I must say that it was a peaceful case, so peaceful that you people think there was no dispute at all. Well, I say that's the correct way: Peaceful. Fleet Command (talk) 06:54, 7 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Second proceeding
 * I am afraid I have to disagree with Wesley Mouse's mediation in the second proceeding. For one thing, he has certain misconceptions regarding the status of the case and for another &mdash; well, I do not mean to offend &mdash; he does not seem to have the merit of neutral mediator. I would rather we have another mediator for the second proceeding. Fleet Command (talk) 19:45, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
 * As much as I take on board your comments, I have to disagree with your perspective of myself as a person and mediator. I am treating this case with a neutral point of view; and taking no sides whatsoever; which is the role of a mediator anyway.  This is an opportunity for all parties involved to put their views across, and find a way to come to a compromising resolution, so that you all work together as a respectful and peaceful editorial team in regards to the article itself, and prevent possible edit warring and account blocks as a result of edit warring.  Wesley Mouse (talk) 19:49, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Sir, I am sure you understand that what you said about yourself would be what anyone who nominates himself thinks. However, without denying the fact that you are acting in good faith and actually mean to be and do what you said (i.e. being a neutral mediator), it still seems unlikely to me. If there is any consolation, I still believe that you can be a valuable involved party and we might as well use your valuable input. Besides, I believe that every single person on Earth is created unique and therefore, it is natural that any given person may not be suitable for absolutely all given tasks. I am sure you have abilities which none has, yet I am afraid that ability, I think, is surely not mediation. Fleet Command (talk) 20:45, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, I cannot see what would give any person (even yourself) the right to prejudge others without knowing them 100%, may I remind you not to use personal attacks and maintain future comments in civil manner. With that said, I shall disregard your comment that any mediator would say they are lying about being "neutral".  ALL mediators must behave neutrally in all aspects of mediation, and if they don't then they are not fulfilling their role professionally.  I have mediated many cases both on the Internet and physical world.  So I shall ignore what could be interpreted as a personally harming comment.  As for your suggestion to become "an involved party" in regards to the article; again I will decline, as I have no interested in the main topic; which is why I acted neutral on the first proceeding by offering constructive suggestions, and also continued to monitor the on-going dispute via the article talk page after the closure of the initial proceeding, which prompted me to discuss with Mr. Stradivarius about reopening the case, to fully conclude the dispute in a diplomatic way.  As I previously mentioned, it appears that now the case is being reviewed, that the main person involved is now feeling disheartened that this is happening, as they feel they are not "winning".  Both Wikipedia and mediating is not about winning but about assisting all parties involved to find common ground, in order to heal any rifts and possible edit warring; and work on ways to get users to work together in a peaceful team-working manner.  Wesley Mouse (talk) 21:15, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Sir, I never accused you or anyone of lying. In fact I stressed that I believe in your acting in good faith. Nevertheless, you did accuse me of personally attacking you, which is not the case. I say nothing of your subsequent statement. I emphasize that I do like the case reviewed -- but not by you. I decline your mediation, in or out of Wikipedia. That is my final word. I nominate Steven Zhang for mediation. Fleet Command (talk) 12:04, 12 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Alright, let's get down to business: My take on the matter is that I am still of the opinion that the consensus in the first proceeding was a sound one. The involved parties has added two other reasons which I am afraid I have to reject. The first reason, the speed of loading the page, is proven to be a wrong one: Having metered the loading time using the browser's developer tools, I see no significant difference in the loading time &mdash; in fact, not one that is comparable to difference in the loading time of the same URL over different iterations. In addition, the website is so content-rich that even one with a broadband connection is expected to experience dozens of seconds loading time already. The second reason is still more questionable: The death of the redirect! That reason is unacceptable because they have no reliable source to prove that the redirect is likely to die beyond their own suspicion. In fact, if personal opinions must be mentioned, I must say that (1) Microsoft rarely ever have killed its redirects; redirects like hotmail.com, skydrive.com, sysinternals.com, microsoft.com/ie, microsoft.com/technet and many others are still intact; why should this redirect die so soon? Furthermore, (2) if we were supposed to act out of fear and not mention something out of fear that it "might just die", the first and wisest thing to do would have been not to contribute to Wikipedia at all, because Wikipedia, which is up and running only on people's donation and a handful of technical staff members, is much more prone to instant/sudden death than a Microsoft property. (Remember, per Trademark Dilution Act 2006, none other than Microsoft may purchase gamesforwindows.com.) Fleet Command (talk) 20:45, 11 September 2011 (UTC)


 * In response to the second response of FleetCommand, which was my reasoning for not wanting it, he is correct that it is why I don't want it. While he says that me assuming the redirect will die is personal opinion, assuming it will not is just as equally a personal opinion. Microsoft does have a history of killing links when they are no longer relevant. Shadowrun.com, for example. His assumption that Wikipedia would die before a redirect link at Microsoft is a stretch, to say the least. My counter to his reasoning, which is the link is shorter, is that it isn't always better. Gamesforwindows.com is pretty much dead. It is highly likely that the platform will be renamed with the launch of Windows 8. If all he wants is a shorter link, then why aren't we using gfw.com or gfwl.com, both of which also redirect to the Xbox.com PC marketplace.  I also have to reject his origional reasoning for wanting the link there. That was the sites aren't merged yet, meaning it was still around at the same time, even though it wasn't being updated. That quickly changed, within the week. VividNinjaScar (talk) 01:58, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Wow, that's one WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT too many. Your entire discussion would have been relevant if I had overwritten the other link which you are so granted for. But I didn't. So, your entire discussion is dead on arrival. So is all this doomsday prediction and the subsequent prescription of sitting in a corner and trembling in fear from link rot: everyday, I successfully resolve a link rot. Even if your speculations come true, the other link (marketplace.xbox.com) is also equally susceptible to die. (Mind you, speculation are not allowed in Wikipedia; reverting others based on speculations is more so.) What if both links die? They are not part of citation after all. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and can (and does) contain history. If the subject is notable, we maintain info about its dead links too, per WP:GACR.  I think it is time you stop refusing to get the point and break up with the revert button which is something of wikilover for you. Fleet Command (talk) 09:02, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Stop taking everything so personally. It was rather straight to the point. In response to you, it is just as damaging to have the link there in the first place if it were to be closed. If someone who as otherwise oblivious assumed that when the link stop redirecting meant the website had been taken down, Wikipedia isn't doing its job. The current link, marketplace.xbox.com/pc, is not equally susceptible to being taken down. Gamesforwindows.com was shut down, Xbox.com has virtually no chance of being closed. Things are being consolidated at Microsoft. You might have thought I meant the service itself, which couldn't be farther from the truth. I was only talking about the URL. I am aware the Wikipedia is not the place for speculation, but when Microsoft announces a website is moving, it implys the other is being closed.  Why is this only an issue for the Games for Windows Wiki page, and not the Games for Windows - Live page? As I've asked before, why don't you want to use gfw.com or gfwl.com? Both are easier to remember than Gamesforwindows.com or the Xbox.com variation.  Please refrain from personal attacks. Wikipedia is not a battlefield. VividNinjaScar (talk) 19:54, 12 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Firstly, may I remind User:FleetCommand for the final time, to maintain a civil manner throughout this mediation process, and avoid being overly personal towards other users, if any further outbursts continue in that manner, then I will have no other alternative but to escalate the matter further. Mediation is not a soapbox, but a place for all parties involved in any dispute to discuss their concerns, and find common ground to work together in peaceful harmony.  Being respectful to others is important, even if you disagree with their comments, you should respect what they have said, and be constructive in your responses.  Secondly, it may be a good suggestive idea for the parties involved to check Manual of Style (Computing Website addresses), as it is looking clear that not everyone involved in this article dispute is aware of what is exactly seen a reasonable styling for web addresses.  You don't want anything to be too long, which will confuse the reader; nor should you be using URL shortening, as they are susceptible to link rot.  If a link does end up rotting, then you are only going to be returning back to a dispute over what should be used top replace it; and that isn't being constructive in keeping an article as accurate as possible, with minimal alterations.  If the target website provider has provided shorter alternative URLs to the webpage without the use of backslashes in them, then use the shorter alternative instead.  If editors involved in this dispute are still struggling to find common ground for which to work together on, then perhaps MedCab is the wrong path to be taking, and arbitration should be considered as an alternative.  But I'm sure the arbitration team would be more stern in their proceedings, than that of any mediator.  Wesley Mouse (talk) 15:16, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Whatever you think is best. As I've said before, this is my first dispute, so do whatever you think should be done. VividNinjaScar (talk) 19:54, 12 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Arbitration is not the process to resolve this dispute, as it is a content issue, outside the purview of ArbCom. I think getting a few opinions here from editors in the Computer Wikiproject as to what is standard convention here may help, as the MoS on website addresses is just an essay. Steven Zhang  The clock is ticking....  20:13, 12 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Thank you for clarifying that aspect for me Steven. Arbitration was only another suggestion for the parties to consider.  It does feel though that this is a lengthy case, and chasing around in circles, rather than users finding common ground to progress further and resolve the dispute.  After all, is it not best to work with each other, than against?  Many suggestions have been put forward by several users now, and for what its worth, appear to be brushed under the carpet.  That alone isn't being constructive in finding a solution.  If everyone were to look outside the box, rather than rummage through the debris, then perhaps it would become more clearer and a simple compromise be found.  Wesley Mouse (talk) 20:22, 12 September 2011 (UTC)